Deepcut Army Barracks

Lord Ashley of Stoke: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the new investigation into Deepcut Barracks will be held in public.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the terms of reference of the review conducted by Nicholas Blake QC are:
	"Urgently to review the circumstances surrounding the deaths of four soldiers at Princess Royal Barracks, Deepcut, between 1995 and 2002, in light of available material and any representations that might be made in this regard, and to produce a report".
	The review is not a public inquiry, but Mr Blake's report, along with the Ministry of Defence's response to it, will be published in full.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, but would he kindly tell me if I have got it right? Four dead solders at Deepcut barracks, hundreds of complaints about bullying and brutality, allegations which mention rape and torture, many distressed families, a new Freedom of Information Act, yet this inquiry is to be held in secret. Is that right?

Lord Bach: No, my Lords, it is not right. Of course there were the four deaths and some serious allegations have been made to the Surrey police. The Army received in June the schedule in which the allegations were contained, which does not include any names, just the broad details of allegations. It is understood that the vast majority of the allegations are uncorroborated and that the Surrey police will not be making any investigations themselves, other than in one case to which my noble friend referred.
	The Army has asked Surrey police for both the names and the consent of those individuals who made those allegations to enable the Royal Military Police investigations to commence and consent has been granted in two cases. These have now been passed to the RMP to investigate.
	The review itself will be conducted by one of the most distinguished civil rights and human rights Queen's Counsel that there is, who will undoubtedly produce a piece of work that will be both independent and of great value to the future of these proceedings.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, does the Minister agree that as many of the complaints to the police were uncorroborated, there is a feeling among the Army that nothing will be done about the complaints of bullying? Surely if the service personnel feel that they cannot go to their superiors and make the allegations, they will lack faith in the system. If that is the case, should not this inquiry look at the culture of bullying which seems to have existed at Deepcut and would not a public inquiry, where testimonies would be taken under oath, be far more efficient at achieving the truth?

Lord Bach: No, my Lords. For once, the noble Lord is exactly wrong. Those coming forward who would like to say what they wish to in a confidential spirit are much more able to do that under a review of the type that we have announced than would be the case in a full-blown public inquiry, in public and in which evidence is heard. They are much more likely to come forward to put their case to a sympathetic, independent reviewer.
	If there is any doubt that the terms of the review are too prescribed, I refer the noble Lord to a statement made by Nicholas Blake QC, which made the matter clear in the following terms:
	"it may be that fresh lines of inquiry will emerge from an analysis of the material".
	He further said,
	"I will be particularly concerned to obtain an understanding of the wider circumstances of these deaths and what may have lead to them, and to make any relevant recommendations".
	I encourage the House to support the review on the basis that it may well take us a good deal further forward.

Lord Renton: My Lords, although the review is confidential and is not a public inquiry, is the noble Lord aware that this case has caused great public anxiety and, therefore, that the conclusions of the review should be made public?

Lord Bach: My Lords, indeed, I am. We absolutely accept that there is great public concern about these issues, but it does not always follow that the best way to deal with that public concern is through a public inquiry, which we all know from bitter experience can sometimes take an enormous amount of time and can cut across police investigations and perhaps, in this case, one of the coroners' inquests. The noble Lord will be pleased to hear me repeat that the findings of Nicholas Blake QC and the MoD's response will be made public.

Lord Laming: My Lords, in the light of the deep concern felt and the earlier reviews, would the noble Lord consider that it might be in the interests not only of families but also of the Army and its well earned good reputation, for there to be a public inquiry with precise and clearly defined terms of reference?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I know both the noble Lord's interest in these matters from the last time they were raised in this House and, of course, his great experience. No, on balance we do not feel that that would be the right course in this case. It would be difficult to lay down the precise considerations that a public inquiry would be asked to look at. The great danger with a public inquiry—and we have not rejected the idea of a public inquiry altogether—about which we worry, and the House should worry, is the length of time that it would take before it reached its conclusions.

Lord Peston: My Lords, I fully understand, and am largely persuaded by, what my noble friend said. He said that the report will be published, but will it include all the evidence or shall we be asked to accept the report without seeing the evidence?

Lord Bach: My Lords, it will be largely a matter for Nicholas Blake QC, who is conducting the review, to decide whether he takes evidence in the form of a public inquiry, which is different. He will want as much information—some of it confidential and some not—to be given to him by those who have a real interest in this issue. I am afraid that I cannot answer my noble friend's question about whether everything that is said to Nicholas Blake QC will be published.

Viscount Slim: My Lords, while I take the noble Lord's point about the sense of holding the inquiry in confidence, there has been much talk in the press and the media about the non-commissioned officers in this case, but where are the officers? From the commanding officer downwards, an officer is responsible. There has been no mention anywhere of officers. Surely a young officer with a platoon with four dead men has a lot to answer for. We were always taught to know our platoon and our men better than their mothers. What is happening?

Lord Bach: My Lords, as always, the noble Viscount asks a pertinent question. Perhaps I may remind him that these four absolutely tragic deaths occurred over a period of seven years—probably not under one officer or even two. But in the review that he is to undertake and report on within six months, I am certain that Mr Blake will have very much in mind the noble Viscount's question.

West Coast Main Line

Lord Sheldon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their assessment of progress in the improvements to the West Coast Main Line.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the west coast route modernisation project is being delivered in line with the strategy published by the Strategic Rail Authority in June 2003. Copies of the SRA's strategy and a progress report are available in the Library of the House.
	Tilting trains have entered service and a new timetable was introduced on 27 September 2004 with enhanced service frequencies and reduced journey times. Further improvements are planned for June and December this year.

Lord Sheldon: My Lords, as the train contract was settled six years ago, is it not clear that the expectation of the trains travelling at 140 miles per hour—not even 125 miles per hour—has not yet been met? Punctuality is not as good as it was five years ago, tilting trains have still not materialised after all these years, and fares are above inflation year after year. Is that not a consequence of separating responsibility for train and track—one of the important decisions made by the previous Conservative government? With £10 billion being spent on upgrading this line, what assurances are being obtained about meeting the requirements that the money is properly spent and accounted for?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, of course, mistakes have been made in the past but major corrective work has been carried out under the project. I can assure the House that the costs of the project have been substantially reduced, and in that respect the project is very much under control.
	I share the view of my noble friend that there are areas of weakness in the performance of the trains. The full list of Pendolino tiling trains will not be available until April next year but, when it is, that will improve the service. As I indicated, improvements are being made with reduced journey times across the line, but it is the case that some of the expectations of a few years ago have not yet been met. We are working towards achieving the highest standards possible.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I note that speeds have increased but fares have risen substantially, reliability has declined compared with 20 years ago, standards of punctuality and comfort have declined and meals have got worse. Can the users of the East Coast Main Line—the franchise which is about to be let—be defended in the franchise round from that kind of progress being inflicted on them?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord will recognise that the West Coast Main Line project is rather different from the franchise arrangements for the East Coast Main Line. We are describing two different developments. But he will know that the reorganisation carried out by the previous administration resulted in very severe costs to the railway system. Significant costs to the system also resulted from the Hatfield crash, requiring extensive work in relation to the safety of the railway, and that has affected train performance and timetables.
	I can only assert to the noble Lord that the East Coast Main Line has improved in recent years and, through investment, the West Cost Main Line is poised to undergo substantial improvements. We are therefore on line to see an improved railway system in which the substantial investment of recent years is justified.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I declare an interest in having used the service to come to your Lordships' House and another place for some 40 years. My noble friend may be aware that trains occasionally tilt, but they do not perform well. I have heard something like 70-odd different excuses, such as slow-running trains in front, and so on. If my noble friend has tried the service, he will have heard some as well. Is he now telling us that the performance will be better?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the improved service, as I indicated from the timetable that we introduced in September 2004, significantly reduces the journey time from Birmingham to London, from Manchester to London, from Liverpool to London and from Glasgow to London. That is proof of the investment in and improvement to the track and the investment in the Pendolino trains which, I freely concede, have not been without their teething troubles. However, the full fleet will be available from April next year. Therefore, we can look forward with some confidence to improved service on the line, which I believe my noble friend knows only too well.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the noble Lord not taking all this rather calmly by referring to areas of disappointment and then adding that the West Coast Main Line is poised for improvement? Is not a little more due by way of explanation?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I was responding to the points that my noble friend introduced with regard to the performance of the Pendolino trains. We have already seen reduced journey times under the new timetable, which is a reflection of very substantial investment in this project in recent years. So we are seeing the first fruits of that investment and improvement. It is a major task. This is the busiest, most intensively used, most complex mainline in the whole of Europe and its refurbishment, across virtually the whole of its length, its resignalling and the development of a new train-set system are bound to produce difficulties in the interim. That is reflected in some of the contributions.

Lord Snape: My Lords, does the Minister accept that my Pendolino train yesterday from Birmingham to Euston arrived six minutes early? Pendolino trains are running and, by and large, running well. Does he find it strange that those who profess to love the railways the most, praise them the least? Will he accept from me that those who work in the railway industry would occasionally appreciate a word in favour of their efforts rather than non-stop denigration from this and the other place?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend speaks with great experience of the railways, both as a Member of both Houses of Parliament and as a former railway worker. I hope he does not regard the arrival of his train six minutes early as a particular benefaction to him as a former railway worker. We look upon that as evidence of the fact that the new timetable in many areas is working to great effect and is a great improvement for the travelling public.

Education: International Strategy

Lord Archer of Sandwell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they expect to have in place an implementation plan for the strategy set out in the paper Putting the World into World-Class Education.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, officials within the department are already in discussions with a number of key organisations which are working with us to draw up and to develop the implementation plan. We aim to finalise that by the end of spring 2005.

Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging Answer. Can he confirm the Government's commitment to the principle that there is no inconsistency between inducing a sense of loyalty to the local community and to the nation and teaching that global security and well-being are indivisible? Have we not learned that tragically in the past few weeks by the events in Asia? Therefore, can my noble friend say whether the Government will co-operate with education authorities in other countries in some of their projects and will they draw on the expertise of NGOs like the Council for Education in World Citizenship and the One World Trust?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is absolutely right. As most noble Lords know, one can rejoice in the village or town in which one lives, one can be proud of being British, or English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish, and at the same time have a commitment to understanding the wider world and feeling part of that wider world. Of course, that is exactly the message in the strategy that we are discussing. He is also right that, in implementing it, we shall seek to co-operate with other educational institutions. That is where we can add most value from our expertise and from our experts and we shall be consulting with a range of bodies, including the One World Trust, in the forthcoming weeks.

Lord Quirk: My Lords, the very first goal in the White Paper is:
	"To transform our capability to speak and use other languages".
	That transformation theme is repeated enthusiastically again and again in the White Paper. Does the Minister accept that in actual fact language learning in secondary schools and in universities is in sharp decline? How will the mere option of a second language in all primary schools by 2010, which is the shared goal, transform such a dire position?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I do not hold quite such a jaundiced view as the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, on the status of language teaching in secondary schools. He may, in part, be referring obliquely to the increased freedom that we have given schools with regard to how much they insist on an obligatory second language for more senior pupils in secondary schools. We have had that discussion a number of times.
	We are absolutely convinced that by getting more pupils aged from seven to 11 involved in languages at an earlier age, we are likely to have a better commitment to language learning as part of a wider educational agenda. Of course, there are links between the relevance of language learning and the rest of the strategy because it should demonstrate to pupils that just being able to speak one's own language, one hopes well, is not enough as part of a global society.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the sentence on page 15 of the supporting paper for head teachers which says:
	"A large secondary school is able to take on a specialist head of international studies, a language teacher with a broad background of interest in international development work"?
	Does he agree with me that that suggests exciting new opportunities in schools for older people who have much broader experience than just teaching languages? Does the planning to which he referred earlier include arrangements for attracting such people into those exciting new roles in schools?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am delighted to find that I can agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on this—as I shall do, no doubt, on other issues today as we progress on to other matters. Increasingly, as the years go by, I share her view that one understands more and more the contributions that older people can make to many aspects of our society. On the specific point raised by the noble Baroness, the off-the-cuff answer is that I expect so, but I would like to go away and check that.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, given that a key goal of the strategy paper is to maximise the contribution made by university research to overseas trade and inward investment, is the Minister concerned about the impact that the growing number of universities closing their engineering and particularly their science departments may have on that objective?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, that is a rather adroit way of just about bringing a different point within the scope of the Question. As the noble Lord knows, because of the concerns of my right honourable friend the previous Secretary of State for Education, Charles Clarke, about decisions made by some universities in relation to certain subjects, he instructed HEFCE to look at the issue. In the national interest, one could not allow a situation to develop in which a range of crucially important subjects were eroded. Of course, we await its considerations.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, declaring an interest as a vice president of the One World Trust and bearing in mind that we live in one moral universe, as my right honourable friend the Chancellor put it, will my noble friend urge that the role and potential of the United Nations is included in school syllabuses?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, an understanding of how the United Nations and other international governance bodies affect not only our lives in our own society, but also the lives of people in other parts of the world is part of good curriculum studies.
	We saw a particularly good example of that recently with the launch by the DfID and Morgan Stanley of a project for schools around the G8 Summit, which allowed schools to look at issues like global warning, its importance, causes and impact on all societies and at the interesting and important issue of how some of the richest societies and economies do, often with difficulty, work together on challenging issues like how to address global warning.
	One could hardly find a better practical example, about both governance and a real issue, for schools to study in their curriculum. Therefore, that is a clear illustration of the importance of bringing international issues to hone in school teaching by such a method.

Emergency Warning System

Lord Garden: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether adequate emergency communication arrangements exist in the United Kingdom to give warning to those at potential risk from tsunami-type disasters.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the UK has a well established flood warning system and central and local arrangements for dealing with extreme events. They were recently tested in Exercise Triton, carried out by the Environment Agency in September 2004, and lessons are being learned from that. Nevertheless, in the light of events in the Indian Ocean, we are looking at the level of risk to the UK from such extreme events and have been in preliminary discussions with the Office of Science and Technology.

Lord Garden: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that honest Answer and appraisal of our shortage of communications for dealing with the sort of event that occurred in the Indian Ocean. As there was much criticism of the nations around the Indian Ocean for not having an appropriate communications system, I trust that the Minister will, with colleagues in the Civil Contingencies Secretariat, look at the wide range of opportunities now available to us to have a proper emergency communications system that will reach those at risk.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, communications are clearly vital. As noble Lords will know, there is a communications system in the Pacific Ocean, where there is greater experience of tsunamis, but such a system apparently does not exist in the Indian Ocean. In the Atlantic we are at less risk from tsunamis than from other potential events such as volcanoes, earthquakes and so forth, and communications systems exist for those. The point of our looking again at the situation is to see whether the communications systems will work and what contingency plans are in place should those need to be triggered.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, further to the Minister's answer to the last question, what emergency arrangements have been made to deal with flooding on the east coast where the land is much flatter? Perhaps I may ask the Minister another question which I hope is not too wide of the Question on the Order Paper. Will he comment on the proposed new 10-mile barrier that is intended to address London's flooding risks? I suspect that flooding in such very flat country—compared with flooding in the west, where it would meet Wales and the mountains—would have to be coped with much more quickly. Who, ultimately, has total control in the matter?

Lord Whitty: Regrettably, my Lords, no one has total control in natural disasters. However, a lot of work and very heavy investment have gone into flood defences for the eastern region in order to deal with such events and with other events that we feel are within the range of experience. Although a tsunami of this size is unlikely to occur in the North Sea, we nevertheless need to be prepared for substantially greater flood emergencies than have arisen hitherto. That is why the issue of constructing a further Thames Barrier has come into play. We will be looking at that. The Environment Agency, the Government and the local authorities concerned are very much engaged in looking at the optimum flood defences for the east coast.

Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, will the noble Lord join me in paying tribute to the emergency workers in the north of Cumbria, in Carlisle in particular, who worked so well and effectively and particularly those connected with Radio Cumbria who, broadcasting night and day, kept morale up and gave out information over the critical period of the weekend when there was so much devastation in the city of Carlisle?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, indeed I will. The efforts made in Carlisle—the way in which the emergency services and indeed the population of Carlisle and its surrounding areas have dealt with a problem of this size—have been exemplary. As such an event has never before occurred in the area's history, it would have been difficult to predict it entirely; but the way in which it has been coped with has, so far, been very effective.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, the noble Lord says that no one is in sole charge. Why not?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Environment Agency is in charge of flood defences and contingency arrangements for flood emergencies while larger emergencies such as a tsunami would be dealt with on a civil contingency basis. The communications system, however, would have to involve a much wider range of people. The noble Baroness is perhaps misinterpreting my remark that not all of this is under human control. We have to recognise that we cannot predict and entirely cope with some things in this country any more than they could in the Indian Ocean.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, reference has been made to East Anglia with regard to the prospect of natural disaster. Are the Government content to think that a disaster such as that which occurred in 1953 in East Anglia would now be prevented?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, 300 people died in the East Anglia emergency in 1953. I am satisfied that that would not happen again, due to the flood defences and contingency arrangements that have been put in place. That is not to say that substantial flooding and damage could not occur on the east coast.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, following on the Minister's previous answer, one understands that emergency communications is a national issue. However, is there a body that will co-ordinate the various regional responses from the devolved administrations?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the contingency arrangements would need to involve all the areas under threat. The particular contingency to which I referred related to the south and east coasts. Therefore, that would involve the Environment Agency and the English authorities. Different sorts of emergencies may well involve Wales and Scotland as well.

Business

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, immediately following proceedings on the Borough Freedom (Family Succession) Bill, my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith will repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on Guantanamo Bay.
	We shall then proceed with the Education Bill. At a convenient moment after 6.30 p.m., again with the leave of the House, my noble friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on Northern Ireland.
	The dinner-break business will begin upon conclusion of that Statement. After the Northern Ireland order, we will immediately return to the Education Bill, so long as it is not before 8 p.m. Proceedings on the Bill will then continue until around 10 p.m. as usual.

Borough Freedom (Family Succession) Bill [HL]

Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
	Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Graham of Edmonton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Guantanamo Bay

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement concerning the return to the United Kingdom of the four British citizens detained at Guantanamo Bay.
	"Let me first recall the context.
	"The attacks of 11 September 2001 were the worst terrorist atrocity which the United States, the United Kingdom and, indeed, the world have ever suffered. In response to those attacks a coalition of countries came together to launch a military campaign against Al'Qaeda and its Taleban supporters to remove them from their strongholds in Afghanistan and elsewhere. In those operations thousands of individuals believed to be Al'Qaeda or Taleban fighters or their supporters were detained by coalition forces.
	"The vast majority of those individuals were released, but those who were deemed to pose a substantial risk of returning to the conflict were sent by the United States to its naval base in Guantanamo Bay, there to be detained and questioned about their knowledge of Al'Qaeda's activity. As a result, valuable information has been gained, which has helped to protect the international community from further Al'Qaeda and related terrorist attacks.
	"Approximately 200 individuals have been released from Guantanamo Bay since their original detention. However, the United States Government believe that a number of detainees so released have returned to terrorism, demonstrating the dilemma faced by the US in considering such releases.
	"Nine British citizens were among those originally detained at Guantanamo Bay. I, and the Government as a whole, have taken our consular responsibilities to those detained very seriously. British officials have visited them regularly, delivered messages and mail from their families and secured improvements in the physical conditions of their detention. I have made a Written Statement to the House following each of those visits.
	"I have set out to the House on many occasions the British Government's consistent position in relation to those detainees. As the House will recall, discussions took place in 2003, led by the Attorney-General on the United Kingdom side. The Government then requested the return of all the British detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. Five of the nine British detainees were returned to the United Kingdom last March.
	"In announcing their return to the House, I said that the Government would continue to work to resolve the position of the remaining four British detainees: Feroz Abbasi, Moazzam Begg, Jamaal Belmar and Martin Mubanga. Since last March, the Government have been in regular discussion with the United States authorities about this. Foreign Office Ministers and I have also held meetings with the families and lawyers of the four men, and with their Members of Parliament. Officials have been in regular contact.
	"Following contacts between the United Kingdom and the United States, involving in particular my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and his office, and between the United States Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and me, the United States Government have now agreed to the return of all four men to the United Kingdom. That decision follows intensive and complex discussions to address US security concerns. All the families have been informed of the decision this morning.
	"The four men will be returned in the next few weeks. Once they are back in the UK, the police will consider whether to arrest them under the Terrorism Act 2000 for questioning in connection with possible terrorist activity. Any subsequent action will be a matter for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. The House will understand that it would not therefore be right for me to comment on this aspect of the matter.
	"I should like to assure the House that every practical step will be taken by the relevant United Kingdom authorities to maintain national security and to protect public safety.
	"Throughout the period of detention of British nationals in Guantanamo Bay, the Government have sought to balance the need to safeguard the interests of Britons detained overseas with our duty to meet the threat from international terrorism.
	"Terrorism is opposed to the values of every faith and religion, and seeks to deny the most basic of human rights—to life, to security, and the right to go about our daily business free from harm. Working with our allies, we will continue resolutely to defend these rights through a robust and determined approach to combating terrorism and its networks of support wherever it is to be found".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am sure that we are all extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for repeating the Statement. I should make clear that we welcome the announcement. We recognise that some of those still detained at Guantanamo Bay may have committed the foulest deeds, and that there has been genuine ambiguity over the status of individuals there who have acted with unparalleled violence, outside all the rules of war—in particular, whether they are prisoners of war or illegal combatants, or simply charged with criminal offences.
	Nevertheless, the three-year history of Guantanamo Bay and its detainees leaves a nasty taste. Disputes continue, not least in the United States, about how its inmates have been handled, are being handled or should be handled. At least all the British citizens are now clear of Camp Delta.
	Have we established the true circumstances in which the four remaining detainees were originally arrested, and does that satisfy the noble and learned Lord that there can be a clear basis on which to decide whether they should be re arrested here? Will the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, which the noble and learned Lord mentioned, be in a position to proceed with full investigations as soon as they return? If it should happen that charges are preferred under current anti-terrorism legislation, can we be assured that the four remaining detainees, or any one of them, will be subject to law by due process, meaning a free and fair trial? Can we assume that these four, having been held longer than the earlier five, are considered less straightforward cases than the previous batch? Is there some sort of differentiation here that led to the delay of their release or return to this country? Above all, can we be assured that nothing in this process will in any way involve a further danger to national security and public safety, beyond the permanent threat that terrorism offers every day to open societies such as ours, which is always with us now, whether we like it or not.
	On the wider context of all the Guantanamo detainees, which obviously must concern us as allies of the United States, is it now the position that the military commissions set up by the US Administration have been suspended by order of a federal judge? Has the Supreme Court ruled on those matters? What exactly is the commission law under which the US Government want the trials to take place, and do they, as appears to be the case, exclude the calling of all expert legal witnesses? Have we raised these broader but important issues with Washington? Is it correct that an inquiry about prisoner abuse at Guantanamo Bay is now under way? Were we consulted about that, and are we being kept informed about its progress?
	We are fighting for a world of law and civilised behaviour against enemies who respect no laws and rules, and who believe in pitiless barbarity and contempt for civilian life. Guantanamo undoubtedly contained, and may still contain, some deeply dangerous men. There must be no weakness in defending our values against such people, but there must be no weakness either in adhering, ourselves, to the values for which we are fighting.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, what has happened in Guantanamo Bay in the past three years has been a matter of very great concern to all of us concerned with the rule of law, due process and human rights. It was described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, in a public lecture that he gave in November 2003, as a "legal black hole" and a "monstrous failure of justice". We were encouraged by the decision last summer of the Supreme Court of the United States that Guantanamo Bay was subject to the jurisdiction of the American courts. But serious concerns remained, and still remain, about the treatment of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and the validity of the process in the tribunals set up to try them.
	We must now congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General most warmly on his part in the successful conclusion of the obviously very long and difficult process of negotiating the release of all British prisoners. I fully understand why he cannot comment on whether any of the four may be prosecuted when they return here, but I have some other questions.
	First, can the noble and learned Lord confirm that the return of the four is unconditional—that the United Kingdom has given no undertakings to the USA about what will happen to them when they are returned? Secondly, can he confirm that, unless they are arrested and charged with offences, the four will be subject to no special restrictions; for example, on their contacts with the media or their movements? If that is not the case, what are the restrictions and under what authority are they to be imposed? Thirdly, can the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not take the view that, since all Britons have now been released, we can forget about Guantanamo Bay? As America's strongest and most influential ally, we should continue to monitor what happens at Guantanamo Bay and to make our criticisms plain if there are any further abuses.
	Finally, if no special restrictions are to be imposed on the four former Guantanamo Bay prisoners, does that not emphasise the difference between the treatment of the British citizens—for whose release from Guantanamo Bay the Attorney-General and others have fought tirelessly—and the continued detention of non-British prisoners detained under Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, in spite of the recent decision of the Law Lords? Belmarsh has been described as Britain's Guantanamo Bay. While that is certainly not an exact comparison, it is close enough to be disturbing. When will the Government decide what they are going to do about these detainees?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I start by thanking both noble Lords for welcoming the Statement, and I have noted the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
	I shall turn straightaway to the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. What will happen on the return of the four men will be, in the first instance, for the police to determine. As I said when repeating the Statement, it is for the police to consider whether, from the information available to them, they should arrest any or all of these men in order to question them under the terms of the terrorism Act. It is then for the police and subsequently the Crown Prosecution Service to determine whether or not proceedings ought to be taken. In the circumstances and at this point in time it would be quite wrong of me to predict in any way what will take place.
	In response to the noble Lord's second question, the important point to be made is that it will be done in accordance with due process of British law in all respects, and that is precisely what will be applied to the four returning men.
	The noble Lord asked about the position as regards security. Perhaps I may repeat what my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said this morning and which I repeated in the Statement; that is, to seek to reassure the House, as did my right honourable friend, that every practical step will be taken by the relevant United Kingdom authorities to maintain national security and to protect public safety. We have of course always regarded that as a very important consideration.
	The noble Lord asked me about the status of the United States military commissions. He will understand that that is not really a matter for me, but both he and other noble Lords will be aware that the United States courts are currently engaged in considering some of the aspects in relation to those commissions. It will be for them and ultimately, perhaps, the United States Supreme Court, to rule in due course. In answer to his question, it is right to say that we have ourselves raised broader issues in relation to these matters. It is also plain that the negotiations I led which looked in detail at the terms of the military commissions will obviously have given the United States our view of those commissions overall. Having said that, the Statement sets out what the Foreign Secretary was anxious to emphasise when he spoke in another place; namely, the context in which the United States authorities took the action that they did.
	Finally, the noble Lord asked whether, so far as we know, an investigation by the United States authorities is taking place into recent allegations about treatment in Guantanamo Bay. The answer to that is yes, the United States has announced a new investigation into the allegations, which is being led by US Army Brigadier General John T Furlow.
	I turn to the questions put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. As I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, what will happen as regards the men will be in accordance with existing British law in all respects. If they are arrested, plainly that will give rise to restrictions; but no restrictions are imposed on their travel within the United Kingdom, or on matters of that sort.
	I can also tell the noble Lord that, as my right honourable friend also said in another place, while our involvement directly on a consular basis will cease once all British nationals have returned, that does not mean that these are not matters which we will continue to raise with our very close allies as circumstances require.
	The one note of discordance that I must make relates to the noble Lord's final observation. I have to say that I regard the comparison with the provisions under Part 4 of the anti-terrorism Act as not only an inexact analogy, but one that is totally misconceived. The circumstances of detention have been entirely different; the fact is that, at all stages, there has been access to full, independent civil lawyers. The most important consideration is that, at all stages, those who have been detained under the anti-terrorism Act have been free to leave if they can find a country to go to. If the same conditions had been applied to Guantanamo Bay, I would not be here today because all the British nationals—and, indeed, many others—would have left a long time ago. So I do not accept the analogy at all.
	As the House will know, before Christmas my right honourable friend the Home Secretary indicated that the Government are actively considering, in the light of the Law Lords' judgment, whether conditions can be adjusted so as to meet the concerns of the Law Lords. That consideration is taking place at the moment. I have no doubt that my right honourable friend will make a Statement as soon as he can once that consideration has been concluded.

Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, while recognising fully, and not for the first time, the dangers of terrorism and paying tribute to the patient efforts of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General over many, many months, perhaps I may ask one simple question. Among the representations made by Her Majesty's Government, was it made clear that they regarded the detention of British prisoners in Guantanamo Bay as contrary to the rule of law?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, as I and other Members of the Government have said on a number of occasions, we made plain that we saw only two alternatives: either the men detained should be tried in accordance with standards we regard as fair and in accordance with international standards, or they should be returned to this country. I think that explains our position.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I should like to echo the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, at the beginning of his speech, in particular his congratulations to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General personally, and the Government generally, on securing the return of these four detainees. That is excellent news.
	Could the noble and learned Lord tell us a little more about what has happened to the five who were returned last March? What is their present position and what has been their history since they were returned?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I cannot give a detailed history, but the principal planks are that the police did decide to arrest four of the five under the terrorism Act. That was done and the men were asked certain questions. Having given answers, the men were released and no further proceedings have been taken. Since the men returned, some have made allegations about their treatment.

Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a layman's question. It is clear that any government must have power to detain those who have committed crimes and to charge them when they are in their territory and that time must be available for them to decide whether to bring charges. That, I think, is agreed. However, what is puzzling is the convention under which a foreign government, ally or not, are able to detain without charge a citizen of this country for an indefinite period—until it is concluded by the noble and learned Lord's own great exertions, for which we are grateful.
	Is the result of this sorry episode going to be an international convention under which an international law is established which determines when a country may and may not detain a foreign national?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, as a result of many of the episodes that have taken place, I cannot say whether any of the bright and expert minds involved in international law will consider that there is good reason to come together and talk about how the law might be brought up to date, amended and so forth. However, I note the point made by the noble Lord.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, to what extent have Her Majesty's Government been given explanations by the United States authorities about the conditions in which the total of nine British people have been held—explanations as to what led to the remaining four being held for a longer period than the original five, and questions of that sort? In so far as explanations have been given by the United States authorities to our Government, will there be a point in time when it is possible to give such explanations to the public in this country?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, if there are concerns about the conditions in which British nationals are being held, it has always been the Government's position to raise those matters with the foreign government or power that is holding them. Allegations have certainly been made in relation to one of these people, and that matter has been raised. In addition, British consular officials have visited on nine occasions to consider the welfare of the men involved. These are difficult conditions and one therefore has to be careful about comparison, but it is fair to say that the Government have done more than any other government to look to the welfare of their nationals. So far as the noble Lord's first question is concerned, we have been concerned to ensure that the conditions are satisfactory and have raised such issues as seem appropriate to us.
	In answer to the noble Lord's second, broader question, many questions have arisen in the course of the negotiations and those have informed the discussions that have taken place. I can add that each time a consular visit has taken place, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has made a statement and reported to Parliament, so Parliament has also been kept fully informed of these matters.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord said that all consular involvement would cease the moment the detainees were released. Does that mean that no further assistance will be given to any of them in pursuing their remedies against the authorities in Guantanamo Bay for any ill treatment that they may have received there?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, that is a different matter from that to which I referred when I talked about consular activity in relation to people present in another country. If they require assistance, it will be a matter for individuals to make representations to the Government. I am sure that all those representations will be studied very carefully and considered on their merits.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I add my words to those who have congratulated the noble and learned Lord on what is, in part, a very personal achievement but also on the Government's achievement in bringing about such very good news. I also appreciate the way in which he expressed, in very stark and simple terms, the alternatives available in relation to the people held at Guantanamo Bay.
	However, I ask him to reflect on the last paragraph of the Foreign Secretary's Statement. It seems to me that the Statement ends on a note of robust determination to defend "these rights" against terrorism—what he calls the right,
	"to life, to security, and the right to go about our daily business free from harm".
	In combating terrorism, will the Minister confirm that the Government agree that it is essential that we do not give terrorists the power to cause us to depart in any way from our standards governing the rule of law and the rights of individuals to due process and fair trial?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, throughout this process the Government have sought to meet the twin objectives of protecting the United Kingdom and its citizens from international terrorism while playing their role on behalf of British citizens detained abroad, and indeed our commitment to the rule of law and the principles that it contains. Some might say that it is the challenge of democracies today to meet the very important objective of protecting citizens against potentially the most atrocious outrages while at the same time defending the values that the Government continue to hold dear.

Lord Acton: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend Lord Borrie, my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General said that certain matters had been raised with the United States Administration. Were satisfactory answers received?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, it is not our practice to give blow-by-blow accounts of any discussions with foreign governments. I am very grateful to the number of noble Lords who have so far spoken unanimously in welcoming the development. The satisfactory answer that we have had is that we have reached a resolution of this problem on which both countries have been able to agree. That is, indeed, a satisfactory answer.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I would like to add my voice to what has been said in appreciation of the work of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General and also of his colleagues in the Government in securing this outcome. I should particularly like to say how much I appreciate the discretion with which the Attorney-General spoke as these discussions went ahead. It is easy to envisage that someone incensed about what was going on could have used language that in the end would have made resolution more difficult than it has been.
	I would also ask the noble and learned Lord to confirm what I understood him to say in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Can he confirm that the handing over by the United States of the British nationals to the United Kingdom is unconditional?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I can confirm that. As I said, the Statement makes it clear that we must take every practical step to protect national security and the citizens of this country. We shall do that in accordance with the law of the United Kingdom, and I am sure that the United States are aware of the content of that law. I note with appreciation what the noble and learned Lord said, particularly about the Government as a whole.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, has the noble and learned Lord detected any change in the reporting restrictions at Guantanamo Bay, which are exceptional? In addition, did he notice the article featured in the Financial Times recently, which shows that there may be some window of change?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Earl any information on that.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I thought that I had understood my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford to ask whether the Government are aware of the evidence being held against these men. First, is the Minister satisfied that it has all been passed on to the Government; and, secondly, and will be passed on to the police?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, we have very good bilateral relations with the United States, as we have with other countries, in relation to matters of justice. I have no doubt at all that our law enforcement authorities will be in a position to make the judgments that they need to make, informed by information from their counterparts in the United States.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, the noble and learned Attorney-General has very rightly referred to the obligation to take every practical step to protect the citizens of this country from terrorist attacks. With particular reference to what is said to occur in Belmarsh Prison, could he tell us what steps other major European countries, such as Germany, France, Italy and Spain, take to provide the same protection?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, standing at the Dispatch Box, I cannot give a detailed reply along those lines. However, I shall do my best to provide a Written Answer to the noble and learned Lord and will place a copy in the Library of the House.

Lord Elton: My Lords, further to the noble and learned Lord's answer to my original question, is it not extraordinary that there was no convention or document that our representatives could point to and say, "You have had these people for the agreed maximum length of time without charge. Under this convention it is now for you to return them"—and then for them to argue against that case rather than the other way round? As I said, I am a layman, but it seems an extraordinary state of affairs. If the noble and learned Lord agrees with me, can he say what steps the Government will take to initiate discussions about this?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord—at least not quite in the way in which he has put his question. The issues involved are legally complex. That, no doubt, is one of the reasons why cases are proceeding at the highest level through the United States courts. Indeed, there was some litigation in this country as well. I can only repeat my previous answer and not add anything to it.

Education Bill [HL]

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
	Clause 1 [Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools in England]:
	[Amendment No. 1 not moved.]
	Clause 1 agreed to.
	Schedule 1 [Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England]:
	[Amendment No. 2 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Baroness Perry of Southwark: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Page 67, line 10, leave out paragraph 2.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: In moving Amendment No. 3, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4A and 42, which stand in my name, and speak in support of Amendments Nos. 16, 77, 78 and 82, to which I have added my name. I also wholeheartedly support Amendments Nos. 43 and 44, standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. Unfortunately there were already four names attached to those amendments by the time I came to read them.
	The aim of the amendments is to ensure the quality of inspection, particularly through the quality of the people engaged in the inspection. At this early stage it might be worth reminding ourselves of the new arrangements for inspection.
	First, they allow for only short inspections—one to two days. Secondly, they still require that the inspectors observe and report upon the formidable list in Clause 2, including the quality of the education; how far it meets the needs of the range of pupils; the standards achieved; the quality of the leadership and management, including financial management; the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils; the contribution made by the schools to their well-being, and so on. It is a very formidable list on which inspectors are required to report in that very short time. Thirdly, we should remind ourselves that the inspection team has the power to put the school publicly into special measures—in other words, to declare it as failing to meet the needs of its pupils. We should also remind ourselves of the effect that such a public report has on the children at the school and on their teachers.
	I rehearse all this because it leads inexorably to the conclusion that the people involved in such inspections must be of the very highest competence, not only in their ability to form professional judgments based on their own experience and knowledge, but also in their understanding of the methodology of inspection, which seems to have been squashed out of the Bill as if anyone could do it at any time. As Amendment No. 42 provides—I support entirely the thrust of the amendments—both the competence and effectiveness of the team are important.
	Inspection would become nonsense if teachers, parents and pupils had no confidence in the professional competence of those inspecting; if the inspection proved to be inadequately organised and prepared; if it was conducted with prejudice and one-sided views; and if plain factual errors were made. Unfortunately, as was well rehearsed during Second Reading, such faults have occurred even with the system of registered inspectors. It is my view and the view of my noble friends that we should be tightening the procedures for registration and training, not dismantling them in the way the Bill seeks to do.
	The Minister was kind enough to write to me after Second Reading to explain the Government's thinking behind the changes. Perhaps I may briefly extract from his letter the core of what he said. The letter states:
	"Currently, registered inspectors have an independence protected by the . . . 1996 Act. Whilst the majority of inspection reports meet the schools satisfaction, there are a small minority which do not. In these cases, it is not possible for the Chief Inspector to have the reports amended without the agreement of the registered inspector.
	"We wish to change this".
	So do I. It is absolutely right that responsibility for the quality of the report should rest with the chief inspector and I support those parts of the Bill which ensure that that happens. But there is no sequitur from the wish to put the chief inspector in the driving seat with responsibility for the quality of inspection reports and doing away with the system of registered inspectors. It is important that the registered inspectors should be able to hand their reports to the chief inspector for final vetting, checking and quality control. That is what these amendments—together with what is already in the Bill—would achieve.
	I welcome, too, the parts of the Bill which give the chief inspector heightened responsibility for the whole process of inspection. This has been gradually whittled away over the years under the system of contracting-out. The fact that the chief inspector is put firmly in the driving seat and that HMI, through the new arrangements, is to be much more involved—the Minister assures me that up to 80 per cent of inspections will now be under the control and in the hands of HMI—as a former chief inspector myself, is very dear to my heart.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us about the need for high quality registered inspectors and will restore to England what the Bill leaves for Wales. If Wales believes that registered inspectors are important, why are they not also important for England? I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: I should point out that if this amendment is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 4 or 4A.

Lord Hanningfield: I support this series of amendments and fully endorse the comments of my noble friend Lady Perry of Southwark, who made a powerful and insightful speech.
	Unsurprisingly, these amendments are not new. They should be familiar to all noble Lords, coming as they do from a previous Act that the Bill seeks to reform. Their intent is clear: they are designed to retain the status quo in regard to the position of registered inspectors in England.
	The Bill as it stands would remove the requirement of the chief inspector to maintain a register of approved inspectors. We on these Benches—despite the best efforts of the Minister during Second Reading—remain highly sceptical that abandoning a system of registered inspectors will bring any significant improvements to the inspection regime. Nor are we convinced that it will speed up and simplify the process, which is one of the principal objectives of the Bill.
	We are somewhat in the dark about how the measure found its way into the Bill. None of the various consultations by Ofsted on the revisions to the framework specifically refers to, or provides, a rationale for the removal of registered inspectors. Perhaps the Minister can indicate what prior consultation was undertaken, for how long and with whom, before the proposal was included in the Bill. If there was no prior consultation, will the Minister explain the rationale of the measure and the department's thinking behind its inclusion in the Bill?
	A serious concern is how the change will impact on the quality of inspectors and the inspections that they carry out. The Bill will allow the chief inspector to appoint,
	"such persons as he thinks fit"
	as additional inspectors. There is nothing to ensure accountability or the suitability of such inspectors for that role. Under the previous system there was provision for a person who was no longer fit to be an inspector to be removed from the register. Without that qualifying hurdle of the register of inspectors, how will the Minister remove substandard inspectors?
	Further questions need to be answered. What impact will the proposals have on existing inspectors? Does the Minister believe that the number of existing inspectors will be reduced? Will he explain how the adoption of this system will speed up the inspection regime? What is meant by the phrase "persons as he thinks fit" in relation to the chief inspector appointing additional inspectors? How will the accountability, quality, impartiality and independence of such individuals be guaranteed?
	I have tried to highlight our concerns about scrapping the register of inspectors regime, which are many and varied. That is why I am happy to lend our name from these Benches to all the amendments before the Committee today.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: From these Benches, we, too, have added our names to the amendments, and I shall add a few words to those that have already been said.
	Accountability and quality control are real issues. I echo entirely the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, about the importance of inspection and the effect of inspection reports on the reputation of schools and teachers. Such reports should not be taken lightly as they are important documents. Therefore, there must be proper quality control. The reason for registration was to maintain quality control over those who participated as inspectors. If inspections were undertaken by those who are employed by Ofsted—in other words, those who are directly Her Majesty's Inspectorate—there would be no problem. It is clear that, while retreating a little from the regime in which there are many subcontractors and many small firms who undertake inspections, the Government are not retreating completely from that regime. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, I, too, received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, who explained at some length why the Government saw the need for change.
	In that letter, the noble Lord states:
	"We shall remove the requirement for the Chief Inspector to maintain a register of inspectors, leaving him solely accountable for the system".
	That is fine, but he continues:
	"The intention is that Ofsted will contract with a small number of inspector provider companies through efficient value for money contracts. These inspectors will be required to constantly and consistently demonstrate their continued effectiveness and suitability to conduct inspections".
	It is clear that if they are to be independent, small provider companies, they will be free standing and will have free-standing legal powers. It is important to have some means of keeping tabs on who is operating on behalf of those free-standing companies. Therefore, the quality control and accountability issue is central. Our questions have not been answered, and we do not know why.
	We used to have a register, but no clear explanation has been given for it being dropped. We know that Wales has opted to keep the register, and we believe that Wales has made the right decision while we are making the wrong one. What will happen when there are differences between Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools and the independent providers? What is the appeals procedure?
	There is a question about the accountability of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, and the need for the chief inspector to work through registered inspectors who have the right to appeal to an independent tribunal, thereby providing accountability. The Bill sweeps that away and gives additional powers to Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools to decide the arrangements for school inspections. For example, scrutiny indicates that Ofsted is moving from 40 providers of inspection services to six, all of which have a regional focus. There will be two providers in each of three regions: two in Bristol; two in Manchester; and two in Nottingham. How will competition be undertaken? If we are to have a smaller number of providers, the power of Her Majesty's chief inspector becomes even greater. There is a question of accountability in that direction, too.
	All told, we are unhappy about the removal of the concept of the register, and do not understand why it is taking place. We should like those clauses to be reinstated. I go along with the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, that we have no problem with control and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools being responsible for reports, but we cannot see how that necessarily means that the registration process needs to be dropped.

Lord Dearing: I put my name down in support of Amendments Nos. 42 and 43. The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, added his name to Amendment No. 43 and would have done so for Amendment No. 42, but the list was already full. I know that the noble Lord would wish me to say that he is engaged in the work of another committee. As a former chief inspector of schools, he supports the proposal that there should be registration. I agree very much with the noble Baronesses, Lady Perry and Lady Sharp, that because Her Majesty's chief inspector is responsible for inspection reports it does not follow that there should not be registration. Indeed, it increases the case for it. Inspections are his responsibility and he should determine whether a person is fit and proper or whether someone should be removed. It works the other way round.
	The inspection team is in the position of being investigating officers, judges and jury—sometimes of the fate of a school. It is a weighty responsibility—a quasi-judicial responsibility. Those who exercise it should be explicitly approved for the purpose and the chief inspector should be accountable for their appointments. I note, also, the wisdom of Wales. Who can resist it? I, therefore, add my support for the amendments.

Baroness Andrews: I am grateful for the powerful advocates in the debate, who have a great deal of experience in the education inspection system. I hope that I can respond to the overwhelming cry to explain why we have gone down this route, as there are, necessarily, few clues in the Bill.
	The amendments have been spoken to with great passion, so I shall take some time to address the central question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, about the need to ensure that we have people of the highest possible calibre within the system and that we lose no value in the changes that we intend to make.
	With that in mind, I thought it might be useful if noble Lords had on the record a longer statement of our thinking, particularly on issues which have been raised, such as quality and accountability within the system, and on why we believe that the register has outlived its usefulness in the context of what we are trying to do. I can do so within a broader context that will allow me to address the amendment more swiftly. I hope that noble Lords will be happy if I do that. It will be a rather longer note than we would normally provide.
	We had a very positive and extensive consultation process on this whole package with schools and with the providers who are responsible for the registered inspectors, and a pilot in 100 schools is testing the new system. We believe that we have found a way forward that builds on the strengths of the system of the past 12 years and makes it fit for the future.
	Like other noble Lords, I should like to pay tribute to all the inspectors across the system and to the extraordinary contribution they make towards raising standards in education. We have had a register for more than 12 years in schools. In that time, the cadre of registered inspectors, working with 250 HMIs, has increased to 5,000, with more than 700 of those being registered inspectors and the rest being enrolled inspectors. They have carried out more than 50,000 inspections over the years; so they have a huge body of experience and a huge and conscientious expertise which we certainly do not want to lose. I hope that I can convince the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, that there will be no damaging impact on the inspectorate and that we are in fact offering enhanced and welcome opportunities.
	Noble Lords have recognised in recent debates on the new inspection system that our proposals present new challenges. The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, referred to that in her opening remarks. We are asking for shorter inspections, smaller teams, and a targeted approach that focuses more on core systems, engages more with the management team through self-evaluation and engages with parents and pupils. That will place new demands on the inspectorate. We need to ensure that inspectors are fully competent and can continually demonstrate competence to deliver the new model. Far from dismantling the system, we see this as a tightening up which will bring improvements.
	Noble Lords are rightly concerned about what will happen to the existing pool of inspectors who have brought such value to the system. The inspectors have been recruited from many different backgrounds over the years. Their enrolment is covered in law under Schedule 3 of the 1996 Act and was introduced by the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. But regardless of where they come from, the inspectors have in common an ability to produce the standards necessary to lead and manage a school inspection. That means taking account of the school environment and ecology, recognising what a stressful time an inspection is for a school, and recognising the impact that the report will have on the school in the community. They must be able to demonstrate the experience and skills for the phase of education they intend to inspect. They have traditionally worked alongside HMIs who are directly employed by the chief inspector.
	Being on the register has simply provided a status that means that the individual can be trusted to undertake a school inspection—it is a badge to do so—and can be trusted to write a report. To get on to the register an individual must initially demonstrate fitness to practise. However, the register has not been an indicator of how good an inspector is at delivering inspections to the required standard. That is reflected in the fact that being on the register is, paradoxically, no guarantee of employment or regular participation. It is possible to be on the register without intending to inspect regularly, and some inspectors may make only three or four inspections a year. For some, inspector status has been a passport to other forms of employment.
	Moreover, registered inspectors are not a part of Ofsted; they are employed by a range of contractors who are themselves independent of Ofsted. Many of them operate on self-employed terms as autonomous units. The chief inspector has little or no say on which individuals are used to conduct which inspections; he can only require that they meet the specification for a tender exercise.
	We are asking schools to learn and improve continuously and to look critically at how they might do so. It is right and proper that we ask the same of the inspection system. So in making the decision to replace the system of a register of inspectors with a greater role for HMIs in the inspection and reporting process, we have been motivated by the intention to enhance the inspectorate system and to enrich the professional development opportunities and systems that will ensure that quality, performance and accountability are improved. That reflects the progress that we have made through the inspection system in recent years. That will keep and mobilise the experience and mix of skills that we already have. It will improve the consistency of inspection, make the process simpler for schools and develop greater flexibility in the inspection system as it grows and develops.
	I think that it would help noble Lords if I were to sum up what we believe are the defining differences between the old and the new systems. Our proposed new system creates a new relationship between Ofsted and the providers which is based on collaboration and teamwork rather than regulation. It builds in quality provisions across an integrated system where HMIs and those who we have designated as additional inspectors will together and equally be charged with delivering the new inspection system.
	How will we build in quality? It will be built in at all levels. Every additional inspector, HMI or not, and regardless of skill, competence or experience, will have to undergo the same training to implement the new system as HMIs. They will be trained together to deliver the new framework. Indeed, they are already being trained together in the pilot. That will be assessed by senior HMIs and delivered through the providers. Feedback from the providers suggests that the inspectors are very supportive of these changes because they regard the additional opportunities as welcome.
	How will we achieve greater consistency and quality? It will flow from the fact that, rather than sample checks by HMI on reports, which is what we have at the moment, there will be a scheme of continuous performance assessment that will apply to all inspectors and inspections and set out the principles for quality in terms of new inspections and the principles for performance management. I refer noble Lords to the Ofsted website where the new scheme for performance management is set out. That is a lengthy and detailed document which is still in development and has been the subject of a lot of hard work. It is difficult to describe because it is long and detailed but I will do my best to boil it down to a few key elements.
	Performance management will be undertaken on a team basis. Ofsted and RISPs will share responsibility for HMIs and contracted inspectors. They will work to key performance targets. There will be a continuous process that feeds individual professional improvement and development. There will be no new entry test for additional inspectors but there will be a clearer, tighter framework for continuous professional monitoring and improvement.
	A third element of quality assurance will come from clearer accountability and a greater role for HMIs. The independence of the registered inspectors left him or her entirely accountable for the system and, sometimes, as we all know, at war with the HMI who was powerless to intervene to change things. That will be replaced by the chief inspector who will authorise inspectors who are fit to practise and remove that right if necessary. I am very pleased that noble Lords have welcomed the fact that every inspection report will be quality assured by the local managing inspector to ensure that the judgments match the evidence and will go out in the name of the chief inspector himself.
	HMIs, the elite of the inspection process, will have a clearer role in leading and reporting on inspection. The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, has mentioned that the proposal is for HMIs to lead 80 per cent of secondary school inspections and 20 per cent of primary school inspections. In future they will work alongside the additional inspectors.
	Who are these additional inspectors? They may be inspectors who are already registered or who would have sought registration under the old system. To what standards will they be working? As I said, there will be no new entry threshold, but they will all have to meet the criteria that HMIs set out and on which we have been working. The criteria will be much nearer to those that we would expect for HMIs themselves. Inspectors will have to demonstrate the ability to meet those criteria in the inspection process, the evaluation of evidence, the choice of evidence and the quality of judgments. HMCI will be directly responsible for ensuring that they are all up to the job.
	Why do we regard the system as simpler and more accountable? The reports will certainly be issued in the name of the chief inspector. At the moment a registered inspector, independent of Ofsted, can publish a report without the approval of the chief inspector. Even in the most serious cases, where he feels that special measures are warranted, an inspector could in theory publish a report although the chief inspector disagreed with the judgment. That means that at present Ofsted can make changes to inspection reports only with the agreement of the registered inspector. As a result, schools have in some cases been left frustrated, dissatisfied with the judgment and unable to have their concerns addressed swiftly and helpfully. Discussions with the Secondary Heads Association and other teacher associations highlight the frequency with which they are called in to arbitrate in school-inspector disputes. That is, no doubt, one reason why schools and teachers have supported the changes we propose.
	Clearly, schools should have a right to swift action. To that end, the new arrangements will also allow the chief inspector to establish a helpline to which schools can address questions. Where there are more serious concerns, he can have a more direct role. He can send one of his HMIs to ensure that all is going well or that the inspector addresses the school's concern. If we retain the terms and conditions for registered inspectors, he cannot do so and our schools will not have the support they need. In the most serious cases, the chief inspector could order HMI to take control of the inspection. If that were to happen, the chief inspector intends that the contractor provider will risk heavy fines.
	Under these new arrangements, inspectors will not have free-standing powers to issue reports as all reports will be issued by the chief inspector. Since a key purpose of the register of inspectors is to confer the right on those inspectors to issue reports in their own right, the requirement for a register becomes redundant. However, there is another element. A simple fitness to practise register will not be sufficient to meet the new demands which we are building into the system—a more comprehensive system with performance management, a quality assurance system and a process which is being tested successfully in the pilot schemes at present.
	Let me reassure noble Lords that removing the register does not remove the independence which is reflected in the market operation of the provider system. The experience of contractors—who will be fewer but not less competitive—will be used to best effect working in partnership with Ofsted. Contractors will have a vital part to play. They will have to recruit inspectors and demonstrate that those recruits meet the criteria defined by Ofsted, matching the competencies expected of HMI. HMI will monitor the process and ensure that they are of consistently high quality.
	A further expansion of independence flows from the difference in conditions of employment. Under the new system, given the likelihood of far fewer inspectors, many individuals are likely to become employed by these contractors with the employment protection that that brings. Individuals who feel aggrieved will be able to call upon the full range of employment protection laws and other services.
	Those changes anticipate another, final, change to simplify the system. Deregistration in the past was a cumbersome and expensive way of removing a less than effective inspector. While complaints are relatively few in number, they impact severely on those affected. In future, we want a system where Ofsted can intervene quickly and effectively. If contractors have, or HMCI has, doubts in future about an inspector's competence they will simply be able to cease to use that inspector, without a time-consuming deregistration process. They are not able to act arbitrarily. There will be arrangements to follow up complaints from inspectors. But the system will be much more responsive to evidence of quality.
	Given the changes we wish to see, the excellent pool of inspectors who will make up the new additional inspectors, the shorter, sharper, more frequent inspections and greater flexibility, we believe that the notion of a fitness to practise register has served its purpose. Not only will the HMIs have that extra quality and accountability, we believe that the register has outlived its usefulness. It has served the nation extremely well for 12 years. It is time to look for something better; and a better system comes with better performance management and quality controls.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, raised the issue of tribunals. One of the problems with the tribunal system is that during the tribunal Ofsted has to prove that you are no longer fit to inspect. It is a complex and expensive process which adds little to the quality of inspection. To operate the system is also expensive. It can run to £100,000 in a single extreme case. We do not believe that the tribunal process adds any real value to the system.
	Wales is different. I am probably one of the few people in this House who can say that with total authority. However, in this instance Wales is keeping a registration process for good, pragmatic and sound reasons. The inspection system in Wales, reflecting the size of the country, is smaller. The workforce is very stable. There is low turnover. We have a highly experienced, small group of registered inspectors who are working closely with HMI, not least because these are people who are always drawn from the same pool. They know the schools, the teachers and the situations. In Wales, there is not a need for changes which build in the performance management which we shall see. Also Wales has just introduced a common assessment framework for inspection. That is very recent—September of last year. It is bedding down. We want to see that change introduced successfully. Wales reserves the right to innovate. It will be able to make any changes which are consistent with what we seek to do in England as and when it wants. Indeed, I am sure that as we watch standards rising across the education sector in Wales, it will develop a system which ensures that that continues.
	To summarise, Her Majesty appoints a chief inspector to ensure that inspection is carried out. He or she should be held accountable for the system and be accountable for the quality of all reports. That is what the Bill achieves. We believe that there will be greater accountability and transparency. I hope noble Lords are happy with that description. I shall be happy to write with any further detail.
	Amendment No. 3 removes the chief inspector's ability to arrange for additional inspectors to assist him in carrying out his functions across the range of his remit. His ability to operate in this way was put in place at the outset when Ofsted was established, as I am sure the noble Baroness remembers well. It remains an important feature.
	Ofsted uses this power to engage inspectors to work alongside HMI on inspections of further education colleges, LEAs, and initial teacher training. We do not want to lose that power. Many additional inspectors will have specialist skills. The amendment would prevent Ofsted engaging additional inspectors in these or in any other capacity in the future. I am sure the noble Baroness and noble Lord would not want to prevent the chief inspector doing that.
	The current system has a register of inspectors who lead school inspections as well as inspectors who support them—and additional inspectors will be engaged in the way I have just described, drawn from the best of the existing pool. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw that amendment.
	Amendments Nos. 4A and 42 seek to reintroduce the system of registered inspectors. In the light of the detail I have provided, I hope that noble Lords will not press those amendments. Without this change, the greater use of HMI, which has widespread support, will highlight the fact that the chief inspector is responsible for inspection reports.
	Amendment No. 43 enables the chief inspector to remove inspectors from the register. Perhaps I may refer to specific points. The amendment provides for the removal of an inspector. Under the proposed system, if the chief inspector is dissatisfied, he simply does not have to use that inspector. Were the register still to be in place, to maintain its credibility, although he would not be using the inspector, he has to consider whether there are grounds for that inspector to be struck off. That would mean that the inspector would face a double jeopardy situation. The whole process would be burdensome and time-consuming.
	Amendments Nos. 44 and 82 would give inspectors a right of appeal to a tribunal. Again, I covered this in my opening statement. We believe that an appeal would have no practical outcome. A tribunal could overturn the chief inspector's decision to deregister an inspector: it could not insist that the chief inspector use that inspector. Given that the legal costs alone run into many thousands of pounds, it would be difficult to justify the maintenance of an expensive and inefficient process.
	Amendment No. 16 seeks to introduce some of the architecture of the system in which Ofsted's role is that of regulator. A regulator gives guidance, lays down standards and monitors. A regulator should keep under review the system that he or she regulates. However, we do not want Ofsted to do that in the future. We want to make the chief inspector directly accountable for the delivery. He will need to ensure that all inspectors receive appropriate guidance and support. He will be held to account for all of that through the Select Committee on Education and Skills, the Public Accounts Committee and the Cabinet Sub-Committee.
	Amendment No. 77 also concerns the process of tendering for inspections and the constitution of inspection teams. This would require the chief inspector to consult the appropriate authority for the school which, in most cases, is the governing body, about the tender specification and only then to invite tenders. While supporting the noble Baroness and the noble Lord in their concern to secure value for money and efficiency, it is quite difficult to believe that the amendment reflects their intentions. I am not aware of any evidence that there is concern among schools about the specification for an inspection that would suggest that schools need to be consulted on this matter.
	One consequence of the amendment would be to prohibit a move to short notice inspection. Once the appropriate authority was consulted, notice would have to be given to the school. There would have to be a significant time lapse to allow for tendering to take place. It is easy to imagine that this would increase the notice period—currently six to 10 weeks—at a time when we are all trying to move towards shorter inspections.
	Of course we are concerned about value for money. Tendering for individual inspections is costly and time-consuming. Moving to a system based on strategic contracts will help secure consistency in standards.
	The amendment would also require the inclusion of a lay inspector in every inspection. Let me place on record the Government's acknowledgement of the valuable contribution of lay inspectors over the years. Some of them are among our most experienced and effective inspectors, and they may well be engaged in the future as professional inspectors, where their skills and experience meet the standards.
	Lay inspectors were introduced at a time when little was known outside the profession about the performance of schools. Much has changed. There are a great many more performance data available to parents to access; inspection reports have proved an extremely popular hit on the Ofsted website. Many more parents are involved in the performance of schools, both nationally and locally. There is no room for cosy professionalism.
	Given that in the future some schools, particularly smaller primary schools, will be visited by only one or two inspectors, it would be hard to justify having a lay inspector as a discrete role. We have proposed that the requirement for a lay inspector on every team be removed. However, I can assure Members of the Committee that the chief inspector and Ministers are committed to ensuring that the user or the lay voice is heard within the inspection process. The school self-evaluation form will need to show how the school is engaging with parents, pupils and others.
	Furthermore, we are considering using lay inspectors in other contexts such as area-based and cluster-based inspections. In addition, there could be a lay input to some aspects of the quality assurance process.
	Finally, the amendment proposes to place a duty on the registered inspector to ensure that no person takes part in an inspection if he has a connection with the school that might raise doubts and conflicts. We fully support this concept; we assure Members of the Committee that our provisions already include this requirement. That will be achieved through the stringent contract management procedures being developed.
	On Amendment No. 78, I am sure the Committee will be relieved to know that I shall not go over in detail the argument about registered inspections. Needless to say, if there is to be no register of inspectors, the issue of rights of entry becomes irrelevant. Other provisions cover the rights of entry for HMI and additional inspectors.
	The amendment also picks up the issues of meeting parents and training for inspectors. Again, I am in full agreement with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord on the principle of parental involvement in their children's education. Indeed, we seek to strengthen this through the package of reforms in the Bill. However, it is important to bear in mind that under the new inspection system, schools have a very limited time in which to organise such a meeting. Ofsted acknowledges this and is working with focus groups of parents in the trials to understand how best to manage this. Often a meeting is not the preferred medium for parents, who may feel the meetings are being hijacked by other, over-anxious parents. So we have included in Clause 6 requirements that steps are taken to notify parents, which may well include a questionnaire.
	Amendment No. 78 also requires that all inspectors complete appropriate training prior to conducting inspections. I have spoken at some length about that training programme, what it will involve and how it will be different. This is in place and has been supporting the implementation of trial inspections. Feedback has been very positive. Satisfaction rates about the inspection process are significantly higher than those achieved under the existing system, which themselves are very good.
	The programme of training will continue through to the planned roll-out of the new system from September. That includes training inspections overseen by HMI experienced in the new approach.
	I hope Members of the Committee do not feel that I have gone into the amendments in inordinate detail. I felt it important to put those points on the record. I hope that my explanation will reassure noble Lords who have been seeking a rationale and that they will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Hanningfield: I thank the noble Baroness for that very detailed explanation, which we shall have to analyse. I have a particular question for her. The amendments are concerned with the current register of inspectors. The noble Baroness went into detail regarding the training and continued assessment of new inspectors, which we all approve. But are we not creating a new type of register? Surely the inspectors will go on a list when they are trained and assessed. If one analyses what the noble Baroness has said, the Government are getting rid of one register and creating another one. If that is their intention, perhaps we should look at the whole question in the light of getting rid of one register and creating a new one. These people will be on the list once they have been assessed and trained, and the list will be held by the Government or by someone else. Perhaps the noble Baroness will comment on this very relevant point.

Baroness Andrews: I do not want to say that that is a semantic point; the noble Lord has raised an important point. The register is essentially a professional register; many professions have such registers, and they serve different functions. This register was intended to badge people up, and it was very useful. Instead of that badge of initial proficiency, we intend to have a continuous rolling system of professional development. People will know when they are on the list.

Lord Hanningfield: Surely there will be a list.

Baroness Andrews: Providers will have to have a list of people that they put forward as qualified to carry out inspections. Additional inspectors will be listed somewhere. The significance of the list will be to show that people serve the purpose. We could probably have quite a long debate on the list's significance, but I will leave it at that.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I, too, have a number of comments on what the Minister has said. It seems to me that the driving force in what is being proposed probably comes from the wish to get rid of the cumbersome and expensive appeals procedure mechanism. We agree with the Minister that it is an expensive procedure. Equally, as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, indicated, from what the Minister has said, a new register is effectively being created.
	We know that a limited number of private sector contractors will provide inspectors. The Minister indicated that it is up to them to monitor those whom they recruit and ensure that they meet the standards. She also said that if inspectors did not meet the standards, they would be dropped—they would, in effect, be blackballed. There would be some whose names were not acceptable. So there is a list, and people can be dropped from it, but there are now no appeals procedures. If you are dropped from the list, that is that—there is no appeal against the decision. It is much cheaper for Her Majesty's Government but it begs natural justice. It is arguable that you should not blackball people on that basis.
	What is not being proposed is that all those who constitute the inspection teams should be HMIs. If that were so the whole thing would add up, but it does not. The Government are still proposing to use outside independent contractors to constitute the inspection teams. Whether you talk about them collaborating or competing does not make much difference—that is purely semantics.
	I believe that in some senses what the Minister said about the way in which the system operates in Wales demonstrates how we should be aiming to do it; namely, on a regional basis where there is a stable register of known inspectors who know the schools and who can be relied on. The kinds of relationships that have been established in Wales have worked so well and they are precisely those which we would like to see established throughout the country. There is a great argument there for decentralising rather than centralising the whole procedure.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: I have been looking for a conceptual gap or divide here. I heard the opening speeches and began to think that there was a serious conceptual divide. Then I heard the Minister replying at some length, which probably means further discussions. I may be a bit thick and thinking too much of the "little list" in the "Mikado" because the word "list" has been used this afternoon. I wonder whether the conceptual point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, about outside inspectors is not the nub of the problem and whether the other matters are not beginning to settle. I may not have understood this debate.

Baroness Andrews: I am sure that the right reverend Prelate has understood it. We shall be drawing heavily on his experience as regards many aspects of the Bill. I shall reply to the most important point that the noble Baroness raised, which is that we are being driven by a wish to rid ourselves of a cumbersome appeals procedure. Far from it, I spent what felt like an age talking about the need to drive quality through the system in a manner that we have not previously attempted because we have been unable to do it. That is because HMIs, registered inspectors and others have been two sides of the regulatory mechanism. We are trying to improve quality and raise standards to those which we would naturally expect the HMI to have by virtue of the competence and knowledge that they bring to the inspection process.
	The right reverend Prelate spoke about outside inspectors. They are "outside" in the sense that they are not HMIs, but they are inside in the sense that, from now on, they will share competence in the training process for the new inspection system looking at the sort of things that go into making quality judgments under the performance management description. They will reassure while acting as a critical friend. It is not about competence in the academic curriculum, but competence in the skills, not least of the personal kind, that are brought in to the process of inspection.
	In doing that, we have to do something different by way of dealing with those who are not good enough. We have not addressed that issue. We shall not abandon natural justice and there will not be arbitrary decisions. We will not expect HMIs, with all their huge experience and conscientiousness, to get into a situation where they are dropping people. Blackballing people is a very pejorative term to use. It is about setting standards.
	I agree that with a more regional base and possibly a more stable team of inspectors, we may achieve the more familiar and routine aspects of inspection which we have in Wales because it is a small and intimate community.
	As regards getting rid of one register and replacing it with another, the statutory register does currently give an inspector the power to issue reports. The chief inspector does not have the final power to pull or amend an inspection report. If we wish to maintain a list of qualified persons, but not the concept of a register which gives individuals such power, we would have to maintain a list and people will know who is on it and the standards achieved. But it will not be the same concept of the register that we have at the moment.

Lord Dearing: We may be misunderstanding and I shall need time to read through what the Minister has said. We all welcome the greater involvement and control through HMI, but because some of us argue for a register, that does not mean to say that the registered inspector should conduct his business independently of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector. It would be consistent with the chief inspector still having the decision.
	Twice during the long reply reference was made to the greater role of HMI inspectors. Perhaps the Minister can remind me whether in earlier documentation there has not even been an assurance that there would be an HMI on all secondary school inspections. I had the impression that for primary schools there probably would not be an HMI, but it would be carried out by an unregistered inspector.
	The key person in all this is the one who makes the inspection. The controlling, distant Her Majesty's Chief Inspector has to rely on what is going on in the front line. It has been said that it is important that we should learn from experience, but the concern is that before someone is let loose in a primary school who is not an inspector, he or she is the kind of person who the chief inspector and the school are confident can do the job well and there is an assurance to the school that the person has that "tick" from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector. That lies underneath my concerns.

Baroness Andrews: The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, spoke about confidence, too, and I meant to refer to it. It is very important. When I speak about the greater role of the HMIs, I am not speaking simply as regards report making. The noble Lord is right in saying that an HMI will not be leading every secondary inspection. There will be fewer of them. The greater role arises in the matter on which the noble Lord has asked for reassurance. It means HMIs not only being alongside the registered inspectors as they train to become the new, additional inspectors; it involves the constant process of individual and team assessment and evaluation of the quality of what is taking place. That will put HMIs nearer the ground to ensure that they know what is going on and can correct matters.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I ask her to clarify a point. What exactly is the role of HMI in relation to additional inspectors' reports? Do those reports have to be approved by HMI?

Baroness Andrews: No. In future every report produced on inspection will be put out in the name of HMI. Previously, a registered inspector, by virtue of being on the register, could write and sign off a report and no one could challenge that. Her Majesty's Inspectorate had no status to challenge or disagree with it. We have given HMI the responsibility and control over the quality of the report. He or she is now in charge of saying that the inspection report reflects exactly what has been found and that is the judgment on it.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: I am very grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken. I am particularly grateful to the Minister who has given us such a detailed and careful response, delivered with such sincerity and charm that it is very difficult to be churlish about it. However, I believe that I am.
	The great hole in the Minister's argument appeared when she spoke about Wales. It is perfectly true, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has said, that if what works in Wales does so because it is a small community where people are well known, that could and should also work for the regions in England. Given that HMI is being divided back into regions, it would be perfectly possible for the same kind of close relationships, close working and knowing people which the noble Baroness rightly said was the essence of the success in Wales, to be repeated in England. The conceptual hole to which the right reverend Prelate referred is very much in terms of what the Government are unhappy to call a "register", but who the new, approved people will be and what they will be doing.
	It appears that the Government totally agree with the comments of noble Lords on the two opposition Benches and the Cross Benches that it is vitally important that there should be quality control over everyone who is involved in inspection. All of us in this Committee agree on that. The conceptual difference relates to whether there should be overt and clear standards and people who have status, as the registered inspectors do. All the careful performance controls that the Minister described delight my heart. It is right that the assessment should be extended to performance of the inspectors, not just the initial threshold standard, but that is not an argument against having them as registered inspectors, or whatever they need to be called. There should be an open list, which has a threshold, where all the necessary threshold tests have been met, where proper training is introduced and then where quality controls over performance can be exercised.
	The other hole in the Minister's arguments is simply in terms of numbers. It is wonderful to hear that the training that these non-registered inspectors will receive will be equivalent to that of HMI. It was that part of the Minister's speech which rang warning bells in my head. The number of inspections in any one year runs at around 2,000. One cannot involve a very few and carefully controlled number of people in that when you are contracting it out to people who then have the right to use anyone they wish. There will no longer be a quality threshold. That is very worrying, because you are talking about several thousand people over a couple of years who could be involved in inspections with no threshold control over their competence to do the job. That seems to be a worrying issue.

Baroness Andrews: Perhaps I may intervene just to say that HMI and HMCI will have the power to tell who is qualified and competent. That will be the quality threshold and many of those people will come from the very best that we have at the moment—the registered inspectors and the enrolled inspectors. Although there is no entry qualification, test or new training, that ability of HMI to determine who meets those standards will be the most important.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: But there is nothing whatever on the face of the Bill which says that those people will be quality controlled at the point at which they are engaged to carry out the inspection. The noble Baroness may assure us that HMI will have control over everyone who is used, but it is a long chain. Even when HMI are involved in 80 per cent of the secondary inspections and only 20 per cent of the primary inspections, the contracting system of using teams from outside will require HMI to take on people with different expertise and specialisms and it will have to draw on a wide range of people. If all those people will be on some list, please can we have a list which also has a threshold with something equivalent to the registration as well as all the wonderful things that the noble Baroness described about quality control over the performance of these people once they are engaged in inspection?
	I shall read the Minister's comments with great care. I approve of and agree with much of them, but there still remains a conceptual gap—to use the right reverend Prelate's words—between what the Government are advocating and what we would wish to see. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Page 67, line 14, at end insert—
	"( ) The Chief Inspector shall ensure that those additional inspectors assigned to inspect any school shall between them possess the necessary specialist knowledge, including where appropriate, knowledge relating to children's affairs as defined in sections 10(2) and 11(2) of the Children Act 2004 (c. 31), in order to complete that inspection satisfactorily."

Baroness Walmsley: The amendment nicely follows the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. Its purpose is to ensure that the people inspecting schools have the relevant knowledge and understanding necessary properly to evaluate how the needs of children are being met by schools in the light of the new regime of children's services brought in by the Children Act 2004.
	In relation to the inspection of children's services in this brave, integrated new world, the chief inspector faces a formidable challenge. Indeed, the Education Select Committee's recent report on the work of Ofsted noted that:
	"Ofsted faces a considerable challenge in developing an inspection regime that is thorough and fit for purpose, yet does not impose too great a burden on services which are themselves coping with a major transformation".
	It is essential that inspection teams represent the full spread of expertise needed to assess additional services for children and their families, in extended schools, for example. This is particularly important, given the proposed reduction in the number of inspection team members under the new arrangements. The proposal that only one person will be expected to undertake inspections in smaller schools is a matter for concern, as it would make the personal characteristics of that single inspector of even greater importance than is currently the case.
	Currently, Section 10 inspectors undergo a rigorous regime. They are required to be qualified teachers and generally have had substantial experience in education. The preparation for inspection is a relatively rigorous process involving a course of training and practical experience of inspection, both of which are assessed. In addition, in order to inspect the foundation stage, inspectors have to demonstrate background knowledge and experience in that phase and attend an additional one day's specialist training—which I very much welcome. Section 10 inspectors are expected to keep up to date with inspection developments and in order to do so are required to attend five days' annual professional training.
	That is in stark contrast to the experience of inspectors responsible for Section 122 inspections, the majority of whom have a social services background and minimal training in early years development and learning. To qualify as inspectors they are required to attend only one day's training, which mainly concentrates on inspection procedures. Additional professional training and guidance is provided, but that is attended only on a voluntary basis. In addition, social inclusion will be vitally important in relation to monitoring children's services. The inspectorate will need to be alert to a wide range of issues, including race and gender equality, provision for disabled children and those with special needs. In that context, Ofsted needs to address the profile of its own staff, which currently displays rather limited diversity. What assurances can the Minister give about the suitability, training and experience of inspectors?
	The General Teaching Council contacted us and was particularly concerned about the need for a common language across the different professions in the inspection teams. We on these Benches believe that that is important. At Second Reading we raised our concern that there appeared to be a lack of alignment between the children's agenda and the Bill. Those criticisms were answered to a degree by the new inspection plans for children's services issued by Ofsted at the beginning of December, which made clear that the aim was to run integrated inspections with CFCI, focusing on how a council's services were improving outcomes for young people and replacing the annual Audit Commission comprehensive performance assessment.
	I notice that on page 5 of the draft for consultation, Every child matters: The Framework for Inspection of Children's Services, principle (6) states that inspectors must,
	"aim to secure the co-operation and confidence of those being inspected and contribute actively to the improvement of services".
	They seek to do that by various means, one of which is,
	"using teams with appropriate experience, relevant skills and shared understanding".
	In view of the existence of that principle in the Government's document, I hope that the Minister will have no objection to enshrining it in the legislation by accepting my amendment. The amendment states:
	"The Chief Inspector shall ensure that those additional inspectors assigned to inspect any school shall between them"—
	not "each one" but "between them", which I think is very reasonable—
	"possess the necessary specialist knowledge",
	to relate to the responsibilities that schools now have under the various sections in the Children Act. Therefore, I hope that my amendment will be well received by the Minister. I beg to move.

Baroness Andrews: The noble Baroness is always very persuasive. When she spoke, I had a sense of déjà vu in respect of the Children Bill. She is seeking to require the chief inspector to ensure that, between them, the additional inspectors have the appropriate knowledge relating to children's well-being. I shall speak far more briefly on this matter than I did on the previous amendment.
	As the noble Baroness knows, many inspectors will already have considerable experience of these matters both through their work as former teachers and through their inspection role. Although it is not explicitly required in the current purposes of inspection, most aspects of well-being are in fact included in the existing framework for inspection and inspectors are used to assessing concepts of well-being.
	However, the noble Baroness is right that not only does the Bill increase the emphasis on the school's contribution to the well-being of children but the Children Act itself, with its very powerful five outcomes, has changed the landscape surrounding what we expect people to recognise and reflect on. When we look at the range of inspections—the area inspections and so on—which will be brought into being as a result of this legislation, we see that that landscape has changed dramatically.
	The most helpful thing that I can say to the noble Baroness—if she wishes, I shall be very willing to write to her with further details—is that the current trials are looking at the aspects of the framework which capture the outcomes as set out in the Children Act in terms of the process of development. From the pilots, we have good and early evidence that that job is being done through the inspection framework, and it can certainly be developed and enhanced through the new training which will be available for the additional inspectors as they come on stream. The new inspection training will reflect that and all inspectors will have to demonstrate it fully through the training inspections.
	Therefore, we do have some evidence. We are absolutely alive to the problems raised by the noble Baroness and to the opportunities. We are alive to the mechanism which is in place through the training inspections and through the framework.
	I turn to two specific points. Speaking personally, I think that the notion of common language is extremely powerful. The more we look for the integration of well-being, welfare and learning, the more we shall search for that common language and the common experiences and practice. That is the burden of the children's trusts and it is part of everything that we are trying to achieve through the Children Act.
	Furthermore, as some inspectors will both undertake school inspections and participate in joint area reviews, children's trusts and so on, there is bound to be cross-fertilisation of skills and knowledge on children's well-being. That will include issues relating to the more powerful recognition of social inclusion and social exclusion. Therefore, there is progress to be made. The trials are in place and they are piloting the new ways of looking at, identifying and auditing the outcomes and so on.
	Where inspection covers extended schools or children's centres, we shall certainly be looking to include specialist inspectors for the early years and elements of childcare in extended schools. Inspectors who picked up on the new after-school learning elements of the framework may have a particular interest in that, and we shall be looking for people with that kind of expertise. We shall ensure that all aspects of provision can be covered in a single inspection event so that people will not be going back and forth and continually looking at different parts of the extended school in the system.
	With the chief inspector personally responsible and accountable for all aspects of school inspection and leading the implementation of joint area reviews, together with the other points that I made, particularly about the ongoing pilots, I hope that, tempting although it is, the noble Baroness will not push me to include her amendment in the Bill but that she will withdraw it.

The Earl of Listowel: I shall intervene briefly. Having visited a number of nurseries in this area and spoken with providers of nursery education, I am aware of their concern that much of the workforce consists of very young, poorly educated women. Therefore, it seems to me to be vital that the inspectors have the expertise to help to develop that workforce.
	What I have heard has been reassuring but it emphasised the point made earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark. We need to be absolutely confident that the people entering these settings have the necessary qualifications and expertise to do a thorough job.

Baroness Walmsley: I am very grateful for the Minister's response. To some extent, I am reassured. We shall look very carefully at any evidence that comes to us from the pilots. I was particularly reassured by the Minister's statement that inspectors will have to demonstrate that they have looked very carefully at the integrated services in the light of the five outcomes in the Children Act 2004. I am not sure how they will have to demonstrate that, but I am prepared to leave that for the moment unless the Minister has anything further to add.

Baroness Andrews: There is relief from this Front Bench. I can add a few more details. We shall be using a common evaluation that will cover the foundation stage, primary, secondary and post-16 education. Part of the evaluation is about ensuring a common language of inspection, which is interesting because the pastoral language may run through it. Teams will be configured to ensure that appropriate skills exist in the way that the noble Baroness wishes. The trials include extended schools and children's centres to help to determine the requirements, and the trials themselves will be evaluated. Therefore, the process is rigorous and we know what we are expected to do. We understand the challenge and we are trying to meet it.

Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for that further detail. I shall look with great interest at her remarks in Hansard and give them further consideration. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 4A not moved.]
	Schedule 1 agreed to.
	Clause 2 [Functions of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England]:

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 2, line 9, leave out "the Secretary of State" and insert "Parliament"

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: With this amendment we return to the issue of accountability. The question here is whether the accountability is to the Executive or to Parliament. Again, there is an interesting difference here between Wales and England. Clause 1 makes it clear that it is Her Majesty who appoints Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, but to whom does he report? Clause 2 states:
	"The Chief Inspector has the general duty of keeping the Secretary of State informed".
	There then follows a list of things that the chief inspector must do. Under Clause 3, the chief inspector,
	"must make an annual report to the Secretary of State",
	who must lay that report before Parliament. But Parliament comes second here, not first.
	When we turn to the Welsh clauses—Clauses 18 to 20—once again, it is Her Majesty who appoints the chief inspector of schools for Wales. However, Clause 19 states:
	"The Chief Inspector has the general duty of keeping the Assembly informed".
	Clause 20 states:
	"The Chief Inspector . . . must make an annual report to the Assembly".
	Therefore, as I said, there is an interesting difference, and the purpose of the amendment is, once again, to bring England into line with Wales, as we sought to do in the amendment on registration. It raises an interesting issue of accountability.
	I was interested to see that, in the letter that he sent to me, the Minister said firmly:
	"We shall remove the requirement for the Chief Inspector to maintain a register of inspectors, leaving him solely accountable for the system. As the Head of his organisation he will be accountable, both to the Public Accounts Committee and to the Education and Skills Select Committee, for the quality of inspections and for the judgements in all inspection reports".
	I found it extremely interesting that the Minister should, in writing to me, imply that the Chief Inspector of Schools was accountable to the Select Committee and to the Public Accounts Committee—in other words, accountable to Parliament. That is what we want, but it is not what is in the Bill.
	I suppose that what we would like to see is the Minister's words translated into words in the Bill. Therefore, we suggest the replacement of the words "the Secretary of State" in Clause 2—we did not carry the amendment through to Clause 3, as we should have done—so that the chief inspector has a general duty "of keeping Parliament informed". As the Minister suggested, that was his prime concern, and it is an important issue. As we all know, the power of the executive has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished. The power of the legislature is far too small. Where we have the opportunity of increasing the power of the legislature in relation to the executive, we should do so. The amendment is a small element in that process, and I hope that it will meet with the Minister's approval. I beg to move.

Lord Hanningfield: I support the general thrust of the amendment. We shall come back to the matter with other parts of the Bill. The amendment is an important test of the situation, and I hope that the Minister can give some reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford. The letter stated that the chief inspector would be more accountable to Parliament, but, according to the Bill, he is not. We should rectify that, and I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments on the matter.

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: I support the thrust of the amendment. I think that I remember correctly that the original legislation in 1992 provided for the chief inspector to be accountable to Parliament. The introduction of the Secretary of State was, in part, a technicality. The chief inspector is, of course, not a Member of Parliament and there had to be a mechanism for laying the chief inspector's report before Parliament; this was the chosen mechanism.
	The point about the reference to Parliament was to emphasise the independence of the inspectorate and, therefore, its independence, in at least one sense, from the Secretary of State. There is good sense in the amendment.

Lord Filkin: I shall surprise the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, by saying that, in fact, the Bill is right. I shall try to persuade her that that is so.
	As the noble Baroness knows, Clause 2 places a general duty on the chief inspector to keep the Secretary of State informed about a number of matters, including educational standards, the quality of education and the well-being of pupils. That information is key to the Secretary of State in the discharging of her responsibilities for ensuring that education policy and provision in England are of the highest quality. She is accountable to Parliament for that. As Secretary of State for Education, she needs the service that the chief inspector provides, but that does not mean that the chief inspector is, in any sense, the puppet or servant of the Secretary of State. He provides information on the basis of his professional service to her about the state of education in the country, and she needs that in the discharge of her duties. She needs the best independent intelligence and advice to assess the impact of the Government's policies, inform the development of new ones and account for those decisions. I expect no difference between us on that.
	That is not to say that Parliament should not benefit also from the independent advice of the chief inspector. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, signalled, Clause 3 specifically requires the chief inspector to produce an annual report, which must be laid before Parliament. The report is made to the Secretary of State, as the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, said, for exactly the reason that he gave. I shudder to describe my Secretary of State as a "vehicle", but, in this context, that is what she is in constitutional terms. That is the route by which the report comes to Parliament, which is emphasised by the fact that the Secretary of State has no power to change even a comma in the report.
	Parliament receives the chief inspector's independent assessment. The annual report distils all the inspection evidence that Ofsted collects into the now familiar "state of the nation in education" report. The evidence makes an important contribution to parliamentary debate and scrutiny. One of the biennial meetings of the Select Committee on Education and Skills with the chief inspector focuses on that report, for good reason. The chief inspector also publishes over 100 thematic and subject reports each year. All contribute to parliamentary debate and the scrutiny of education policy and are therefore accessible to Parliament and, more specifically, to the Select Committee on Education and Skills as part of its functions.
	The Secretary of State needs to be informed about standards and quality to perform her parliamentary function and her governmental functions, and there are mechanisms that ensure that Parliament is informed about the chief inspector's findings and can engage face-to-face with the chief inspector on those findings through the Select Committee. We believe, therefore, that the amendment is neither desirable nor necessary.
	As we suspected, the amendment was triggered in part by the situation in Wales. The situation in Wales is more different in appearance than it is in reality. In Wales, the chief inspector has the general duty of keeping the Assembly informed about standards, quality and so on. That is a more appropriate model. However, the reference to the Assembly in the Wales equivalent to Clause 2—Clause 19—is open to misinterpretation. The Government of Wales Act 1998 does not provide for the Executive Committee of the Assembly to have a separate legal existence from the Assembly. In practice, most of the Assembly's powers are delegated to the First Minister and, therefore, to the Assembly Government. This is one such example. The position in Wales is, therefore, similar in practice to that in England.
	In conclusion, I turn to the power of the inspector's contribution to parliamentary scrutiny. Since 1999, the Education and Skills Select Committee has formalised its scrutiny of Ofsted. It calls the chief inspector twice yearly to examine Ofsted's work and the issues raised by the chief inspector's annual report. It produces regular reports on such matters. The inspector's most recent appearance was in November 2004, and it is open to the Select Committee, if it wanted, to develop and enrich that engagement with the chief inspector. The executive have no power to intervene between Parliament and the chief inspector, nor should they have.
	I apologise for that lengthy answer, but, in essence, that is how things are. The chief inspector is independent; he has a duty to report and give his professional judgments on the state of education to the Secretary of State. Parliament has a direct ability to engage with him and the judgments that he makes on the basis of the work that he has undertaken. That is as it should be, and that is what the legislation reflects.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister. I am better informed, and his reply was helpful. The intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, indicated that there was independence in the establishment of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools of which I had not been fully cognisant.
	There is an interesting difference between the position of the English Parliament and that of the Welsh Assembly. In the English Parliament, we have to use the Secretary of State as the vehicle by which we can approach Parliament, whereas, in Wales, there is a different set-up, and the Assembly can be approached directly, so to speak. In that sense, the legislation is perhaps slightly misleading because it initially gives the wrong impression. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 6:
	Page 2, line 11, leave out "by" and insert "in"

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: This is a small amendment, but it is perhaps a fairly important one. This is an interesting issue. In Clause 2 it says,
	"the quality of education provided by schools in England".
	It happens that schools have no legal identity. If schools have no legal personality, how can they provide something? The providers are the governing bodies of schools; they are the ones with legal identity. In law, schools cannot do anything. The issue raised in the amendment is a small but subtle point. If we change the clause to read,
	"the quality of education provided in schools",
	one overcomes the problem that schools have no legal identities as such.
	Perhaps there is too widespread a tendency to speak of schools having obligations and doing this and that. It covers up issues of who, within the school management structure, has the relevant responsibility. In turn, that leads to disguising responsibility and sometimes, as far as schools are concerned, to the overload of responsibilities. It is a rather subtle, little amendment but it has quite important repercussions.

Lord Filkin: Not for the first time, I fear it is too subtle by half for me. One tries to get one's head around what is behind an amendment and sometimes one misses.
	I do not believe that there is a problem on the legal identity point because the amount of scrutiny that the Bill has had by parliamentary draftsmen and departmental lawyers would have exhibited that by now. However, I do not expect the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, to take that on trust; I believe that it deserves a really detailed and nastily complex letter on why there is no problem, which we shall supply for her.
	I believe that there would be a problem if we took her advice. As we interpret the point, again with the benefit of our excellent lawyers, it would have the unintended consequence of limiting the process to what took place physically within a school and, therefore, would quite literally put out of bounds all the functions that a school undertook in the wider community, such as school trips, sports activities outside the school, work experience with local employers and so on. In other words, it would imply a physical definition on the activities of the school, which I am certain is not what the noble Baroness intended. I am sure that she will be the first to see that that is part of the wider responsibilities of a school and that a school could not always fulfil those responsibilities simply within the physical curtilage guarded by the school caretaker.
	For those reasons I hope to be able to persuade her that there is no legal problem. I hope that she will accept my suggestion that, if on this occasion we did what she suggests, there might be a problem. I hope she will feel minded to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before my noble friend sits down, I understand his feeling of anxiety about going into a morass of legal issues. I trust his speech did not imply that when he writes to the noble Baroness he will agree with the proposition that schools have no legal identity. I know of a number of schools with very young children aged from three to five which recently have incorporated themselves. They did not realise what troubles they would get into with the returns that have to be made, but at least it should be on the record that it is not true that schools always have no legal identity.

Lord Filkin: I thank my noble friend Lord Wedderburn. I am sure that in our response we shall mind what he has said and ensure that we enrich our answer as a consequence.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I look forward to the letter that I shall receive from the Minister. It was the legal minds within the National Union of Teachers that informed me that schools have no legal identity. It is true that the school governing bodies have legal identity in relation to schools. The point that the Minister made in relation to the wider issues of education would surely be caught by, for example,
	"spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils at those schools".
	Other aspects within this would pick up the point that he raised. I shall leave it to the lawyers to argue this one. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 7:
	Page 2, line 20, leave out paragraph (f).

Lord Hanningfield: A number of the amendments that we have tabled at the early phases of this Bill are designed to probe and elicit from the Minister assurances that we seek. I stress that that does not necessarily mean that we are opposed to particular elements of the legislation, but we are taking our time to scrutinise properly the Bill as the House has come to expect, and to hear from the Government how such changes will operate and work in practice. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will take these amendments in such a light and see them as essentially probing in their nature.
	Amendments Nos. 7 and 27 are a case in point. By their nature, in England and Wales they would leave out a new duty to which the chief inspector must have regard in the inspection of a school; namely, reporting on how a school contributes to the well-being of its pupils. Such a step arises from the very important piece of legislation in the Children Act, to which we referred earlier. We on these Benches were happy to support the intent of that Act, which is a very important piece of legislation involving the well-being of children, believing that it introduced important efforts to safeguard and to guarantee the rights and safety of children.
	While I understand the reasoning behind why such a new duty is to be included as part of the inspection process, I believe that there are a number of practical questions that need to be answered. The definition of well-being as set out in the Children Act and which will be used in this scenario is wide-ranging and comprehensive. Therefore, basing an inspection category on such a definition raises a number of questions.
	How will Ofsted and each inspector measure and judge such a definition in each school? Elements of the definition, such as social and economic well-being and the protection from harm and neglect, would appear to have more to do with life outside a school environment and would appear to be matters that a school is limited in its ability to influence. Therefore, is there not a danger that such a wide-ranging definition of well-being will differ from one school to another and from one inspector to another? How will the Minister guarantee that there is a standard comprehension and application across the country? What percentage of the report and the time taken for an inspection does the Minister envisage will be taken up in the judging and reporting of well-being?
	If there is to be a significant increase in the work undertaken to judge well-being, does the Minister believe that that could have resource implications? Furthermore, what additional burdens and work does the Minister estimate will be placed on each school in the evaluation of what they are doing in this area? Does the Minister believe that, in incorporating such a major category as the contribution played by each school to the well-being of its pupils, there is a danger that elements of the inspection regime, notably around educational attainment, may suffer as a consequence. Is there not a concern that schools may be diverted from their principal objective of providing quality education, given the inclusion of this new category?
	As I said earlier, we are not opposed to this at all, but we want to elicit from the Minister some answers on the concept of including this measure in the inspection regime. I hope that the Minister can provide some of the assurances that we seek. I beg to move.

Lord Dearing: I am grateful that this issue has been raised. It is an issue of interpretation rather than disagreement. The requirements of the Children's Act, as incorporated in the Bill, are very wide indeed.
	Amendment No. 8 from the Liberal Democrat Benches will again look at this particular subsection and seek to tie it down to those things for which teachers and the staff in schools are specifically responsible. Some provisions imported from the Children's Act are so wide that one wonders—for example, in primary school X—how on earth they could impact on the economy of the community, and so on. One is concerned that the breadth of this provision may detract from the sharpness—the focus—of what the inspectors are required to do in a very short period.
	The Government have made clear their very strong commitment to improving the physical development of school children. There is an investment of £1 billion up to 2006 in PE and sport—excellent. Two hours a week is to be committed to PE and sport—excellent. I say "excellent" to both those propositions because, as I said previously in the House, the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology in a report found that by 15 years of age 15 per cent of our young people are obese. It defines that as a weight gain which is a serious threat to health.
	The Government's example is that one wants to make sure that the remit of the inspectors is not interpreted so widely that they will not be able to give the weight of attention to this that the Government clearly intend. My own preference would be to import the word "physical" into the "social, moral and cultural development of children", which provision has been there for a long time, because the school is concerned with the physical development of children through physical education and the quality of school meals.
	In a private discussion, the Minister and I noted a report by the Evening Standard last week on the quality of some school meals; and again it was concerned about it in a report last night. One just wants to elucidate that, in this very broad requirement of the Children Act, the inspectors will be given the kind of focus on the physical development of our young people that seems to be in the Government's mind.

Lord Filkin: I was slightly surprised when I read this amendment because it seemed, on the face of it, to unwind the Children Act on which we spent many important hours in the previous Session of Parliament, by the removal of the well-being responsibility from the inspector's duties and leaving only the discipline elements of well-being. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has made it clear that while that is what it looks like on the face of it, in practice it is a probing amendment for the reasons he has articulated.
	There may be a slight sense of déjà vu therefore in some of the things I say in terms of why we think that this must and should be an appropriate part of an inspector's functions when inspecting schools. The House knows well that the Children Bill, as it then was, really rested on two key ideas—one of which was the recognition by most teachers that the capacity of a child to learn in the school was so massively affected by other factors in terms of the child's wider well-being. One does not need to labour the point, but clearly the parental environment, the attitude to learning, the health of the parents, the physical health of the child, in the sense if the child or young person was on drugs, quite clearly impact on the child's capacity to learn.
	We know that one does not deal in schools with standard raw material. The child sits in the context of a wider sense of well-being, or not so well-being, which impacts on his ability. Therefore, if we are concerned only about educational attainment, we would also have to be concerned about how one removes some of those wider barriers to educational attainment. The Children Act does not sit simply on that as an argument: it basically says that the child is a person, not just a vehicle for importing educational learning; and that, therefore, we have to be concerned as a society about the total well-being of the child.
	That is why we think that the Children Act is one of the most fundamental and powerful pieces of legislation that this House has passed for some time, and why it is also necessary that the inspector has a responsibility to look at well-being within the school.
	The devil is in the detail of course. We recognise that the school can have an impact on wider aspects of well-being than simply the educational attainment impact of it. Clearly, it can have an influence on health outcomes; it can have an influence on the attitude of the child on whether he goes into meaningful employment; and it can have an influence, along with other partners outside the school, on whether a young person drifts into crime or other forms of activity.
	Essentially the Bill recognises that the school, whose primary function is undoubtedly educational attainment, is also a crucial contributor to the wider well-being attainment of the child. We expect that of the school and therefore it is right that the inspector has an appropriate look at what the school is doing to contribute to those wider aspects of well-being.
	How will Ofsted judge the matter? That is a good question, to which there is no glib or quick answer. Ofsted is currently consulting on the framework for inspection of schools, which includes physical health and wider aspects of health. We are happy to give more details of that in correspondence, so that the House can get a flavour of its nature. We do not believe that this should be burdensome on schools, because, as my noble friend Lady Andrews said, well-being in practice is already within the remit of schools. The Children Act has just made it sharper and more explicit. Otherwise, there will be a diversion from standards; in fact, one would hope for the reverse.
	Let me make that last point. Because schools work better with other partners in attending to, for example, the mental health of a child, which is affected by the mental health of the mother—which, in fact, is often the cause of mental health problems of children in school— you will get better learning by that child at school. So, it is not simply that we do not believe it would create burdens. If it works well progressively, you will actually get better educational attainment because you are addressing some of the impediments to educational attainment as part of the process. In a sense, that obliquely addresses why I do not think that it would be right to limit the provision just to physical well-being, not least because I have responsibility for child and adolescent mental health. I would not want to let that one pass.
	Also there is harm and neglect outside. Let me not go on for too long, but part of what we are saying is that all public bodies, of which schools are one, have a duty to contribute to the safety of a child. It is not only social services that have responsibility; teachers will also pick up issues that worry them—for example, a child is bruised, but why is that child bruised? This provision makes it clearer that that must be part of their responsibilities. Therefore, they will know how to act in that situation without having the prime responsibility for making the judgments about whether the child needs to be taken into other forms of care or protection.
	On the difference between schools and inspectors, these are also the challenges of inspections. As part of what I promised in terms of more detail on the testing of the framework, I shall give a flavour of quality assurance on those issues because it is a proper question. Let me try to ensure that there is good moderation and that there are no significant differences between schools and inspectors.
	I believe I have probably touched on many, if not all, the points.

Lord Hanningfield: Could the Minister explain a bit more? I wear another hat as the leader of a large local authority with 600 schools. They are very different. A lot of schools spend much time supporting families. I totally agree with what the Minister has said, but if you go to different parts of my county of Essex, the well-being could be interpreted in totally different ways. I was trying to probe how this will actually work in inspections, because some inspections might have to devote a lot more to the well-being of what is happening in that school and—almost—whether parts of the Children Act are being complied with.
	In other schools the situation would be different and the point of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, that there should be more physical activity in that school might apply. Therefore, if the Minister cannot do so today, I hope he will let us have more details because I can see that it could be an important new part of the inspection regime, particularly in some areas because of the nature of schools. As I say, we have 600 of them and they are very different; indeed, there are many diverse problems in different areas. I do not want to go into details here, but different problems in different schools must be looked at. Well-being is very important, but it can be interpreted in different ways in different places. Perhaps the Minister will comment further on that.

Lord Filkin: The noble Lord is right; he has partly answered his own question. In Essex there will be different situations in Basildon, if I have got it right, compared to the most rural part of Essex. In other words, the challenges to the well-being of children will differ between schools. One of the reasons that local government has leadership responsibility for the Children Act 2004 in communities is to reflect that function.
	Secondly, the inspection process hangs off the school's self-evaluation of how it is addressing the five well-being responsibilities. Again, that is right. Because of the differences between areas, the inspector will look at what a school says are the challenges to its children's well-being, based on its understanding of their school environment, and what they are doing about them. No doubt the SIPs and the inspector will at times challenge a school about whether its focus has been too lopsided on one outcome rather than another. That is part of what good inspection is about. But the process will start with a school's perception of the issues. Therefore, while the five outcomes will be common, as splintered down into the 25 more detailed ones that we have set out in subsequent documents, it is right that schools will respond at times with a different emphasis or different initiatives. There is not a set of perfect answers to all the issues. Part of the process is for schools to demonstrate their own creativity in getting around the issues. If we knew the answers to obesity or drug-taking, we would have dealt with them by now. There should not be a national rubric in this sense.
	I hope that those points are helpful, because they relate to why local government should have the lead role in this respect. Despite that, it is important that I set out in a little more detail how within that diversity there needs to be fair commonality. I think that that is the nub of the noble Lord's question.

Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for that reply and look forward to his further response. I still wish to know more about how the Government feel that Ofsted would operate in the system, given the diversity of schools and the nature of well-being.

Lord Filkin: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will bear with me if I say a little more on health, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, whose questions I should have addressed.
	Health and well-being are of the utmost importance. We share the concern about obesity and other health challenges. The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has spoken powerfully and passionately about the issue at previous stages. We know some of the complex of factors leading to obesity and other negative outcomes. We want all schools to be healthy schools, which means promoting a school ethos and environment that encourages a healthy lifestyle; using the full capacity of the curriculum; offering healthier food and drink across the school day; and promoting physical activity. We want all schools to be working towards being healthy schools by 2009.
	To support schools we have developed a healthy living blueprint, which offers resources and guidance on teaching and learning, including cooking; suggests ways of helping pupils to understand where food comes from and how it is produced; promotes physical activity and sport, and offers help with the physical environment, indoors and out. It draws in many other facets that have an impact on good health and well-being.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, signalled, we are providing £1.1 million to support schools in ensuring that healthier school meals are available; reviewing national nutritional standards for secondary schools; providing advice for schools on procuring a healthy school meals service, and training for school caterers.
	Physical education and sports are obviously crucial. Active children are less likely to be obese. Investment now stands at over £1.5 billion, more than £680 million of which is funding a step change in school sport facilities. Already over 50 per cent of schools are involved in a school sport partnership, and every school will be in a partnership by 2006. The network of schools comes together and receives extra funding to enhance and increase sports opportunities.
	Adding to the purposes of inspection the contribution that schools make to the well-being of pupils will ensure that health and well-being are captured in the routine inspection of schools and used to inform the wider requirements on services to children, as required by the Children Act 2004. In addition, Ofsted will, through its separate programme of subject and thematic reviews, look at specific aspects of pupils' health and well-being in more detail. There are at least two such studies in the programme for 2005–06. The Government have set a challenging PSA target to address obesity, focusing on children.
	Schools cannot take full and absolute responsibility for tackling child obesity but have an important role. We will give support and encouragement to help them, their pupils and their families to work together to make each school a healthy school.
	I apologise for interrupting the closing remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, but it probably was efficient to seek to address the question of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing.

Lord Dearing: I am immensely grateful to the Minister. I am reassured and satisfied.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I understand that the Minister made an additional point, on which I would like to ask a question. When guidance is given down the line on all those enormously important matters, which become increasingly wider the more one debates the subject—the whole life of the child and his or her family—surely one should bear in mind the teachers who must prepare for inspections. Preparation for an inspection, and the inspection itself, can be emotionally and psychologically traumatic for some teachers. They worry that they have not done enough. I know people for whom inspection was the last straw that made them leave the teaching profession. It does not happen very often, and I hope that it will not happen at all.
	Does my noble friend think that some boundaries will be indicated? If not, teachers preparing for an inspection on all the matters that have entered noble Lords' minds—they are valid, of course—will find it increasingly difficult to know whether they have left anything out. I hope that that aspect will be borne in mind. Having disagreed, it seems, with the advice of the National Union of Teachers, I have an interest in making up by asking such a question. However, it is a genuine question, which is particularly applicable to young teachers facing their first inspection.

Lord Filkin: At one level, the five outcomes are not new; they have implicitly been part of many schools' responsibilities to the wider education of their children. Secondly, we will touch later on the shorter notice period, which, we believe, helps to reduce teachers' anxiety and stress, because it is better to worry for a week rather than two months, if I can so put it. Thirdly, this is not, I am glad to say, theory. The process of testing the new system is extensive and has been extensively advanced. So far the feedback from head teachers and teachers has been very positive. They are finding the new system possible and perceive it as working better than the old one. My noble friend is right that the anxiety and burdens on teachers must remain part of our concerns, but so far the evidence looks positive.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I wish to follow up the points on physical exercise that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, raised. Like him, I was very impressed with my noble friend's response and the amount of resources and activity going into improving the provision of physical exercise opportunities in schools. I wish to raise two points.
	I hope that the Government's provision will include encouragement to take part in competitive sports. I know that competitive sports are not particularly attractive to some pupils and that schools must ensure that some of the activities made available will appeal to such students. But over the past 10 to 15 years the opportunity for many children in state schools to take part in competitive sports has been reduced. They have lost out considerably.
	One of the problems that arose during the industrial disputes of some years ago was out-of-hours activities by teachers. I raise in particular the question of primary schools. With the gender imbalance among teachers, it can sometimes be very difficult for kids in primary schools to have any access to team games, particularly in leagues. It is a great pity. I hope that my noble friend will agree to take the matter back to the department and, as part of the impressive programme for encouraging physical activity, he will look into the ways in which we can encourage competitive team sports.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I probably ought to have entered into the discussions a little earlier.
	I was extremely pleased to hear what the Minister said about the flexibility that the schools would have in interpreting the range of provisions set out in subsection (1). During the passage of the Children Bill, we received a number of rather surprised comments from the education side on the fact that they were not as involved as they thought they should have been. An attempt is being made here to remedy that and leave a degree of flexibility, particularly in subsection (1)(b) which deals with,
	"how far that education meets the needs of the range of pupils at those schools".
	I am not going to go into that matter because we will come to it. This emphasises the real concerns we have about whether growing children receive the support they need to achieve the Government's aims of getting children—and particularly the most vulnerable children— out of the state that they are in and able to make the best of their qualities.
	I would like to emphasise the question of recreation and sport which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned. Though a huge amount of money has been put into this, there is a long way to go to achieve the two or three hours of recreation and—it is to be hoped—of competitive sport. I could not agree more on that matter. There was a period when any form of competitive sport in schools was regarded as highly undesirable. That was an appalling time.
	Like my noble friend Lord Dearing, I have raised the matter of obesity on several occasions. We have had a debate on the subject. It is a matter of growing concern and I see that the Government are taking it more and more seriously. I hope that there will be no need for legislation, but a great deal more needs to be done here. I am glad that there is room for it in the range of requirements under the Bill.

Lord Filkin: I am grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, acknowledged that there needs to be—and is—proper flexibility according to local circumstances, needs and creativity as part of both the responsibility set out in the Bill and the way in which schools respond to it.
	I strongly agree with both the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on the subject of competitive sports. There was a rather strange fashion when anything competitive was seen as slightly suspect. Those days have gone. Without being too personal, one knows that when one swims against someone one gets more exercise than if one plods up and down the pool alone.
	I would like to give a fuller answer on what we are doing to promote competitive sports in schools that I will set out in a letter and copy to other Members of the House.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I would be grateful if the Minister would give way for a second.
	In view of what we have heard in this debate—and what the Minister has said about the Government's concerns—is it not very surprising that the word "physical" does not occur in the clause? The words "spiritual", "moral" and so forth occur, but "physical" does not. Should it not be included somewhere?

Lord Filkin: As I touched on earlier, health is absolutely and categorically one of the five outcomes that the Children Act has as its central responsibility. I signalled why this is a wider concern than just physical health. Mental health will, I fear, increasingly be one of the problems of our society in the future. Schools can make a contribution to that as well. The Bill deals with both physical and mental health in their totality. I am well paid by the House for interrupting the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, on his closure.

Lord Hanningfield: We have had a very interesting debate. I was going to withdraw the amendment a little while back but a lot more discussion was precipitated—particularly about sport—which I found very interesting and worth while. We are all united on that matter. My noble friend Lord Moynihan announced the Conservative Party's policy on sport about a month before the Government announced theirs. We have identical policies on sport in schools and wish to support that.
	I look forward to the Minister's response on this matter, as the issue of all types of well-being in schools is very important. That has engendered a much longer debate. I am sure that we will pursue this at further stages of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 8:
	Page 2, line 20, leave out paragraph (f) and insert—
	"(f) the contribution to the well-being of those pupils by the teaching and other staff of those schools according to their different responsibilities"

Baroness Walmsley: As your Lordships well know, Clause 2 adds two elements to the duties of HMCIS to keep the Secretary of State informed: first, the extent to which the school meets the needs of all students; and secondly, its contribution to well-being as defined in Section 10(2) of the Children Act.
	Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, I do not want to delete subsection (1)(f) completely, but it needs clarification. That is why we on these Benches have chosen to move the amendment. Its intention is to probe what "well-being" is supposed to mean in a school setting, and how the Government envisage the teaching and other staff of the school contributing specifically to that.
	The other side of the coin is this. What constitutes a lack of attention to well-being? Can the Minister indicate how staff might fail in an inspection on this factor?
	Can the Minister say something about how he sees all five elements of the outcomes—physical, mental and emotional health, protection from harm, education, training and recreation, their contribution to society and social and economic well-being—playing out in an inspection? I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, on the stressful effect that the very breadth of what we are asking schools to achieve could have on teachers.
	We know that schools are a major contributor to children's well-being and always have been. I do not know if noble Lords saw a programme during the Recess entitled "The Child of Our Time" which was presented by the noble Lord, Lord Winston. Both my noble friend Lady Sharp and I saw it. There was a perfect example in it of a lovely little boy who, despite all kinds of terrible situations in his family background, managed to keep school as a special place. His behaviour in school was totally different from his behaviour at home.
	Conversely, we know that very often difficulties at home spill over into behaviour at school. The role of a school in a child's well-being is, as the Minister said, nothing new. But what is new is that it is specified clearly in the Children Act and now the inspection framework will include inspecting how well schools are doing in that context.
	It is odd that the Government are making so much of the role of schools in well-being in the Bill, while at the same time refusing to accept in the Children Act that schools should be listed as co-operating partners.
	Both the Ministers will probably remember that during the passage of the Children Bill, with the support of many children's charities including the NSPCC, we tried to persuade the Government that the duty to co-operate should exist not only between strategic bodies such as strategic health authorities and probation boards, but also between operational delivering agencies including schools. In response to our amendments the Government stated that one of the levers of influence to ensure that co-operation took place between delivery agencies would be inspection. While we welcome the provisions set out in the current Bill to inspect the contribution made by schools to the well-being of their pupils, there are no explicit provisions for inspection to ensure that co-operation between other strategic and operational agencies takes place in schools.
	That is why we have tabled this amendment. It seeks simply to probe how the lever of inspection is to apply, as the Government stated it would, during the passage of the Children Bill last year—and very specifically how it relates to what teachers and other staff in schools are expected to do. I beg to move.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I want to speak to my Amendment No. 9. This is something of a catch-all group around the definition of "well-being". I must confess that my amendment might have fitted better with our discussion in the previous grouping on physical activity than it does with these amendments, but I hope that noble Lords will bear with me on that as the other course of action would be decoupling the amendment from this group.
	As we know, Clause 2 sets out the functions of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England. Subsection (1) specifies the chief inspector's general duty of "keeping the Secretary of State informed" about a number of aspects of the performance of individual schools including paragraph (f), covering the well-being of pupils. My amendment seeks to ensure that in any assessment of the well-being of pupils, a school's commitment to out-of-school learning is an important matter to be considered. As we heard on the previous group, "well-being" is defined in Section 10(2) of the Children Act 2004 as,
	"physical and mental health and emotional well-being; . . . protection from harm and neglect; . . . education training and recreation; . . . the contribution made by them to society; . . . and social and economic well-being".
	I think that that rather wide definition ought to embrace out-of-school learning—or as I no doubt incorrectly refer to them, school trips.
	School trips contribute enormously to the well-being of children. They can enrich a pupil's education by contributing to physical activity, as we have just discussed, and by providing adventure and raising environmental awareness among students. In particular—and this is where there is a connection with the other amendments in this group—school trips can be especially helpful to less able children. The evidence of the advantages that such trips bring to many of our young people is clear, but there is currently a real problem in schools when organising them.
	Many schools have negative perceptions about trips. Performance between schools on their attitude towards them is very patchy and we know that there are particular financial problems for schools in inner city areas. The fact is that schools often depend on so-called voluntary contributions from parents towards the financing of trips. Anyone who has read the letters that are cleverly crafted by head teachers to encourage "voluntary contributions" will know that unless parents are prepared to contribute, the trips will not be undertaken.
	We know that there are problems related to the so-called blame culture, with fears of litigation when an accident occurs. The NUT reckons that insurance premiums for school trips have increased by 25 per cent over the past few years because of the problem of litigation. Some teacher unions are reluctant to encourage their members to supervise trips. There is also a lot of bureaucracy involved. My noble friend has debated with Members of the House on a Starred Question on school trips the whole issue of those wretched risk assessment forms that teachers have to fill in. I would say to my noble friend that he really ought to look at some of them. If a teacher wants to take a group of sixth-formers from a sixth-form college to a local museum, he or she must fill in these ludicrous forms. That is absolutely ridiculous and no wonder they are so off-putting to teachers. There is also a problem with regard to teacher training. I am not sure whether enough focus is put on encouraging the value of expeditions and school trips among new teachers.
	I am not here to criticise my noble friend or his department; indeed, the record of his department in this area has been encouraging. For instance, the Growing Schools programme has included in-depth studies of outdoor sites and centres and the advantages that they bring. Practical guidance on health and safety has been published, although I must say that I think it very much goes over the top. I know that his department has encouraged the importance of school trips and has opened up a dialogue with the teacher unions.
	I also draw attention to the work of the Better Regulation Task Force and its report entitled Better Routes to Redress, published in May of last year. The report looks at the whole question of the compensation culture and at what I would describe as the urban myths of people suing public authorities for large sums for trivial reasons. It is a very encouraging report because it states in essence that fears of a compensation culture are often over-expressed and not substantiated. It also makes the point that our judicial process is very good at sorting the wheat from the chaff. The compensation culture is actually rather a myth in our society, but because people, public authorities and schools believe that there is a culture of compensation, it leads to defensive management and a fear of litigation, with the result that organisations are overly cautious about what they do.
	Because of that, we hear of schools banning or not holding events that they used to hold because of the fear of being sued. They worry that if anything happened to a student, the parents would take the school to court. That affects the culture in which school trips take place.
	I acknowledge the work of my noble friend's department in seeking to do something about it, but I want to take this opportunity to encourage him to do still more. I know that establishing task forces sometimes leads to criticism about the way the Government go about their business, in particular among Members of the party opposite, but I cannot think of a better subject for a task force and a rapid action plan if we are to turn the whole business of schools trips around.
	The kind of work that we need to embrace over the next few months is this. First, we must send an absolutely clear message to schools that out-of-classroom experience is important and ought to be an integral part of every child's education. Secondly, we need to find the resources to help poorer schools and students meet the cost of school trips. Thirdly, I ask my noble friend to look at whether we ought to give students a statutory entitlement to a minimum number of days out of the classroom. I acknowledge all the problems associated with trying to fit the curriculum into a busy school year and we have already heard about the intention to provide two hours' worth of physical activity a week, so trying to sort all this out is not easy. But one way of enhancing out-of-school education as a whole would be to provide a minimum amount of time that students spend out of school.
	We ought to ensure, through the Training and Development Agency for Schools, that current and future teachers are adequately trained to undertake schools trips.
	Above all, we need to work with teachers, heads and school governors to attack the compensation culture myth. As a minimum, if the DfES would summarise the work of the Better Regulation Task Force report and ensure that it was circulated to all schools with some support from the department, that might have a beneficial impact on the current climate, which makes people fear litigation so much.
	We also need to help teachers. We have to ensure that they feel supported when things go wrong with certain school trips, as they sometimes do. It is impossible to devise out-of-school activity that really means something to a young person if there is to be no risk whatever of physical accidents. It is impossible to reach that situation.
	Where accidents happen, the very least that teachers can expect is that there will be no knee-jerk, blame-culture reaction to suggest that if something happens, the teacher in charge must automatically be wrong. My noble friend Lord Winston is in his place. The same considerations apply to doctors and medical staff who are concerned with accidents in the health service. If we automatically assume that the person in charge has made a mistake, it is no wonder that professionals are very reluctant to accept the responsibilities that we want to place on them.
	I hope that my noble friend will listen sympathetically to the points that I have made. I do not expect him to accept my amendment. However, I hope that he will consider whether his department will be prepared to develop some kind of task force, some kind of action plan, to get back to the idea of school trips that really are supported. They can do so much good for so many young people.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: I intervene very briefly in the debate on paragraph (f), which seems to have caused many issues to arise.
	My noble friend Lord Wedderburn spoke earlier about the burden on teachers of undergoing inspections. As a school governor who has just undergone a school inspection, I appreciate that the present system is indeed a burden and causes tremendous pressure on staff, governors and parents. However, we should remember that the intention of the Bill is to reduce that pressure by having far less detailed inspections. We should not forget that these inspections are about inspecting the school development plan, which will, one would hope, be developed with governors and would involve parent governors at least.
	I agree with much of what my noble friend Lord Hunt said. I believe that we could become involved in some obscure detail about what we mean by learning out of school, but I shall not elaborate on that. I wonder whether we could get round the problem by simply adding to paragraph (f) a form of words as defined in the Children Act and set out in the school development plan. The Children Act is fairly precise about outcomes, and I know that those are defined later in the Bill. However, I wonder whether they should be mentioned here, which would get over the business about the physical and mental areas to be developed in pupils and might indeed include everything that we are talking about, apart from the liaison with other agencies, which is due to be debated shortly.

Lord Hanningfield: I support much of what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said. I am not so sure about the task force that he proposed. As he said, we may not be quite so keen on it. However, I certainly support all the sentiments that he expressed about school trips. I have visited literally hundreds of schools during my pleasurable career. Sometimes one meets young people who would not have had a chance to develop by seeing all kinds of things and visiting all kinds of places without their schools having organised such trips. I certainly know from my own experience that if I had not visited many places when I was at primary school, I probably would not be here, as I am sure is the case for many Members of the Committee. Actually seeing the way that things operate has contributed greatly to our personal development. I have sometimes felt very depressed about the opportunities missed by young people as a result of schools failing to organise such outings for them.
	I therefore very much support what the noble Lord said about school trips. Unfortunately, because of problems in recent years, I believe that not very many trips are currently taking place, and certainly people are withdrawing from them because of the culture of our society these days. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that in his response.
	I now want to speak particularly to Amendment No. 26 in this group of amendments. We discussed this kind of issue when we debated previous amendments, but this is a serious and important amendment which would add to the inspection criteria. Together with the comment made just now, it is very relevant to the Children Act. It relates to how effective the school is at enabling vulnerable children to thrive within its environment.
	It is estimated that about a quarter of all school children experience difficulties at some time in their schooling. Such difficulties could arise as a result of being disabled or handicapped or from statements of special educational needs, with which we shall deal later in this legislation, but also as a result of suffering from learning and behavioural difficulties.
	I am a supporter of special schools for many of these requirements, but now more are being integrated and will be integrated into mainstream schools. That is the specific reason why this amendment is important. It is crucial that every school should do everything possible to ensure that these children benefit from the same learning and physical environment as their fellow pupils.
	This amendment would be used by Ofsted to gauge how successful a school was in providing such facilities and how well it had achieved the objective of integrating these children, and, most importantly, in providing them with life chances and educational opportunities. There could be further advantages. With such knowledge, the parents of such children would be better placed to make informed decisions about which school was best suited to the needs of their children.

The Earl of Listowel: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 28 and 30 tabled in my name. However, before doing so, I also voice my support for the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
	Having been involved previously in organising trips for 11 and 12 year-old children, having taken them ice skating, some of them for the first time, and having seeing their delight when they began to master that skill, I believe that it would perhaps also be of great benefit to teachers to be able to take pupils on such trips and to see them having such a good time and enjoying themselves. I also took a group from White City on a dry skiing trip, which I believe was a very good experience for them.
	Both of my amendments concern children in local authority care. The first refers to the educational attainment of looked-after children in the school, and the second refers to the adequacy of the plans for looked-after children in the school. The purpose of my amendments is to ensure that inspectors consider very carefully whether the guidance regarding the education of looked-after children is being properly followed and implemented in schools.
	Concerns have been expressed in the Government's Social Exclusion Unit report, A Better Education for Children in Care, about the consistency with which this guidance has been implemented. That has been supported by perhaps the first piece of really thorough investigation of the education of looked-after children in schools, Taking Care of Education, by the National Children's Bureau. The senior researcher who supervised that project, Dr Isabelle Brodie, recently sent me an e-mail in which she states:
	"it seems that schooling experiences continue to be variable and the ways in which existing guidance has been implemented differ considerably between LEAs and schools . . . The evidence from the first phase of our study indicated that even when PEPs were being completed, the quality of the content was often poor".
	The matter needs to be addressed and this guidance is fundamental.
	There are particular challenges for children in local authority care. First, they come principally from very poor backgrounds; black children are over-represented; and black boys are likely to spend far longer in care than other children.
	The people who work with such children, regrettably, lack professional development. Very often they are committed people but, for instance, in 1998, 70 to 80 per cent of residential care workers had no relevant qualifications to work with children in children's homes.
	As to foster carers, in France people have to undertake an obligatory 240 hours of training before they can be registered as foster carers. In France and Denmark there is a very substantial remuneration for the work they do with foster children, whereas in this country, it is gratifying to learn, the Government have recently introduced a minimum allowance to ensure that payments for clothing and food are adequate. But that is a long way from what happens on the Continent.
	Such children tend to lack the advocates that other children may have. For example, many children with disabilities have middle-class parents who are very vocal in getting what is needed for them, but children in the care system tend to come from poor backgrounds and both parents may not be able to act as powerful advocates for them. The people who look after them are often not professionally trained and therefore not necessarily the best and most effective advocates for such children. So that is one issue; one challenge.
	A second challenge is that many of these children arrive in schools in the middle of the school year. Sometimes the schools which have places at that time of year are those to which parents would prefer not to send their children. So, quite often, children in the care system tend to end up in poorly performing schools. That is further disadvantage for them.
	Thirdly, the Government's policy on statements is, quite rightly, to try to reduce the number of statements so that the money can be used to build up the capacity of the whole school to support children with particular needs. Statements tend to go to children with clearer physical disabilities rather than to those with emotional behavioural difficulties. Of the group of children I am discussing at the moment, because of their backgrounds and histories, 40 per cent have some kind of psychiatric disorder according to the Office for National Statistics. That compares with about 10 per cent in the general population.
	So these children are disadvantaged by arriving in the middle of the year, perhaps, and by missing out on getting a statement and not necessarily getting the resources they need to be supported in the school. They make up only 1 per cent of the school population and so, again, it is easy to overlook the particular needs of these children.
	It is important to recognise these challenges for such children and it is also important to recognise the challenges for the teachers. As I say, because of their experience, some of these children present quite challenging behaviour. So it is vital that the right processes are in place in schools to ensure that teachers know what is going on and can respond strategically to what is happening with the children.
	Many of these children benefit from smaller settings—special schools—as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, commented earlier. We also want them to be in the mainstream if at all possible and there have been recent innovations to make it easier for these children to be in a mainstream school. I emphasise that it is a diverse group; some children are very academically inclined and do very well, but others have more difficulties.
	Perhaps I may briefly give an example from my own experience of working with eight and nine year-olds this summer. Anne Longfield, the chief executive of 4Children—formerly Kids' Club Network—kindly arranged for me to have some practice work with these children in north London. On the third day, the Wednesday morning, I was walking with the senior worker and one of the children, a nine year-old. We had been having some problems with the child, who had difficulties relating to the other children and with his behaviour. As we walked along he said, "Well, I have started my new parents now"—and that is how we learnt that this child had just moved from the care system and become adopted. It would have been extremely helpful if we had known that at the beginning of the week. Looking back on it, there are a number of things that we could have done that would have helped.
	I was very pleased that we were able to do some good work with this child on the Thursday. Returning from a trip to go canoeing with the group, in the van back he had a good, long conversation with an eight year-old girl. She had been to Butlin's many times and he was going with his new adopted parents to Butlin's for the first time. So she was very happy to talk about her visits to Butlin's and he was very interested to learn what to expect when he got there. This was all mediated by a worker. It is an example of what can be done but it is helpful to have all the information when one tries to do that kind of work.
	There is also the issue of confidentiality. For many of these children who are taken into care, their experience of the adult world has not been a positive one. Many express strongly the feeling that schools should not know anything about their backgrounds; that this should be kept in confidence. But they also say that they would like their experience to be acknowledged to some degree in some way. So there is a certain tension there. Those who have looked carefully at the issue think that such information needs to be shared, but I emphasise that the processes behind sharing that information have to be absolutely top notch.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, the experience of being in school can be a tremendously positive one for any of us, but for children who are experiencing a great deal of chaos in their home lives and a great deal of instability it is especially vital. The programme of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, I believe, bore that out. I should also emphasise, as I have found myself with a particular teacher, that a teacher who speaks to the child and has a good relationship with the child can raise that child's self-esteem and inspire the child to be involved with education. Again, Dr Brodie refers to this. Young people themselves report that teachers can play an extremely supportive role in their lives.
	Perhaps my amendments are not the right instrument to ensure that this happens but the point I am trying to reach—and this should be on the face of the Bill—is that there is a real motor here to ensure that inspectors very carefully check procedures; check that there is a senior designated teacher in the school, who is given the time to liaise with local authorities; and check that personal education plans are not merely tick-box exercises and are continually up-dated.
	This is a real opportunity to improve the educational experience of these children. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am conscious of the time. We have had a very interesting debate on this clause and I will briefly put the main point which led me to anticipate the noble Earl as I did. I am sorry.
	My noble friend Lord Hunt surely raised a tremendously important point. As it has been said so often I shall merely subscribe to it and leave it there.
	But it also raises the question of what the Committee is doing. There is a relationship between drafting and reality. There is an easy way out, which Mr Balfour took in 1905 when challenged on the way that he had put the question that trade unions were corporations, which is wrong. He said, "I know that. I am talking English, not law".
	But that is a glib way out. If there is a justification for this House and its procedures, a question which I prefer to leave pregnant in the minds of some of your Lordships, and if there is a worry about a compensation culture—I put it that way advisedly because sometimes it is in the imagination of well-stocked bars rather than reality—and people do believe that risks have increased, my noble friend Lord Hunt is quite right about that, then that is not invented by lawyers; it is partly invented by Parliament because Parliament does not take enough care with Committee stages. The difference between reality and drafting is what the Committee stage is all about. I dare to raise this question in a technical form as it will be quicker that way. My noble friend may not want to answer it tonight, but I hope that he will keep it in mind.
	The debate has rather assumed that the tremendously important word "well-being", which underlies the entire debate about how far teachers must look, what they must do, and what inspectors must do, is in the form set out in Section 10(2) of the Children Act 2004. There must be a relationship between the meaning of well-being and all that goes with it, including:
	"physical and mental health and emotional well-being; . . . protection from harm and neglect; . . . education, training and recreation"—
	which my noble friend Lord Hunt will be especially interested to note. Section 10(2) continues:
	"the contribution made by them to society; . . . social and economic well-being".
	But the Bill does not tie the meaning of well-being to those targets.
	It is interesting that there is no amendment tabled to Clause 11, so the point may be lost if it is not raised now. The clause states:
	"'well-being', in relation to pupils at a school, is a reference to their well-being having regard to the matters mentioned in section 10(2) of the Children Act 2004".
	It manifestly could include something that is not mentioned in that section. Whether or not there is a compensation culture, there will be litigation. It is a fact of life that in any free society there will be litigation. One of the most important words that will have to be defined in those proceedings will probably be "well-being".
	Perhaps my noble friend and his officials can look at Clause 11 to ensure that it is in the form that he wants. A reference to "having regard to" a list of things is a long way short of a conclusive definition. Perhaps such a definition is not wanted; there may be other things to be kept in mind. But Clause 11 contains peculiarly loose phraseology, which I mention at this stage so that it is not missed.

Lord Filkin: There is much to respond to, and I shall do my best. One well respects and is sympathetic to the intention of the amendments. There is strong consensus about the broad spirit of the Bill, and the debate is about whether such things are best achieved by making specific amendments to it. We clearly recognise the importance of schools both in improving the well-being of their own pupils, including, in particular, the most vulnerable, and those children and young people in the wider community.
	That is why we have proposed changes to the statutory purposes of inspection, requiring inspectors to consider and report on how far the school meets the needs of the range of pupils at the school, and its contribution to the well-being of its pupils.
	The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, spoke fulsomely and passionately about the issue of looked-after children. His amendment and that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, relates to vulnerable children.
	The purposes of inspection are delivered through the framework for inspection. During the trials of the new system, inspectors have used the framework to ask schools about looked-after children, using a case study approach to track the experience of those children within the school and the impact on their educational and personal development of the school environment. I hope that the noble Earl found that as he would wish it to be. It includes looking at how the school works with other agencies in meeting the needs of looked-after children, as well they need to, given the appallingly poor educational outcomes of looked-after children.
	There is a section of the inspection report dedicated to the attainment of pupils in the school. Inspectors report on their assessment of whether there is significant under-achievement between groups of learners, for example. That ensures that attainment of all groups of learners, including looked-after children and other groups of vulnerable children, such as pupils with special educational needs, is evaluated.
	Schools are responsible for promoting the educational achievement of all their pupils, as your Lordships know from discussions on the Children Bill. We do not, therefore, see what a specific duty for one particular group of children would achieve. We would be in danger of having a list of particular groups that the inspector had to think about and assess, and which would be adding one thing after another. That would fetter the inspector's discretion. It would also single out individual children from vulnerable groups. The number of looked-after children can be one or two in a primary school, and as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, signalled, there are also issues of confidentiality in that respect.
	Evaluating the impact of all services, including education, on the attainment and progress of looked-after children will be an important element of the joint area reviews and will be picked up there. In such an inspection it will be possible to report on that group of children as a whole without drawing attention to individuals.
	I hope that that provides the assurance that the needs and experience of looked-after children must be an important part of the system. But it would not benefit from being explicitly addressed in the way suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel.
	On the amendment regarding Ofsted reporting on the adequacy of the plans for looked-after children in school, evidence shows that it is the local authority, as corporate parent for looked-after children, that holds the key to improving their educational achievement. I shall not speak at length, but issues such as stability, out of authority placements, and the ambition of foster parents or care homes make an enormous contribution to whether looked-after children do or do not achieve.
	School inspection is moving to a model built on self-evaluation by the school and focuses on the outcomes achieved within the school, as opposed to the processes by which those are achieved. Reporting on the adequacy of the plans is in danger of taking us back to the world that we have well lost rather than trying to evaluate the outcomes. Therefore, such reporting and the institutional inspection of school will be better captured as part of the wider assessment of children's services at local authority level. Should there need to be a more detailed look, that would be best achieved by other means, for example, the evaluation of the relevant policies, which could include a thematic study conducted by Ofsted as part of its annual work programme that is agreed separately with the Secretary of State.
	We heard a passionate speech on out-of-classroom learning from my noble friend Lord Hunt. I cannot do it full justice in the time available, particularly as my noble friend the Leader of the House will be snapping at my heels if I go on for too long as the other debate is about to start.
	What my noble friend said is important. We recognise that there is concern about a blame culture. The Better Regulation Task Force, as he signalled, has demonstrated extremely powerful common sense in that respect. I shall give some thought to whether there are ways in which to get the good messages of the Better Regulation Task Force to schools, without breaking our self-imposed abstinence of not showering schools with more advice and paper. That might be a bit of a challenge. Nevertheless, there is a kernel of common sense in what my noble friend said, on which we need to reflect.
	I shall be even more cautious about setting up a task force from the Dispatch Box—my noble friend will be surprised to hear that. But his proposal requires considered thought rather than a quick letter bashed off within 24 hours of the debate. I shall try to give my noble friend a slow letter and an even more thoughtful one, which would be better. I shall not speak at greater length on that issue as time is pressing.
	On well-being, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, started to stray into the next debate, and I shall resist the temptation to debate Clause 10 now. I hope that she will forgive me, as we shall have plenty of time after dinner.
	The amendment concerning inspecting the contribution of the school to the well-being of pupils requires the chief inspector to keep the Secretary of State informed about the contribution made by various groups within the school to the well-being of the child. I am pleased that the noble Baroness is at one with the Government that we must assess the contribution made by schools to the well-being of children as they are clearly major players. Children develop in a great many ways and base their views on a great many factors. It is not the individual contribution of each group of the school work force that is important, but the environment that they combine to provide, which should be one that encourages learning and stimulates the young, keen mind and challenges the learning that they receive in a positive, developmental way.
	Where they require support, it is important that the staff ensure that it is of the right quality and suited to the needs of the individual. I believe that the manner in which the clause is currently drafted, requiring the chief inspector to report on the contribution made to the well being of the child by the whole school, is the right way forward, and I hope that the noble Baroness will take that positively. Inspection contributions are important, but their overall impact on the child must be paramount.
	Perhaps I may look to some of the other points that I have not addressed so far. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, answered the challenge made by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, by reminding me that well-being is defined in Clause 11 by reference to Section 10(2) of the Children Act. I shall take the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, to ask our lawyers whether there are any risks in the way in which the law is currently drafted in the Bill. I thank him for that. I could talk on hard-to-place pupils and the contributions that protocols will make for them, but we will, I hope, come to that later tonight.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, started by talking about the risk of failing an inspection. In a sense, inspection starts with self-evaluation. The issue of the new system is the stimulus of self-evaluation within a soft framework, rather than a rigid one. We hope that that will stimulate the school and its leadership, both the paid staff and the governors, to think about how they can do better to achieve the outcomes for the children. It will therefore be less of a case of pass or fail, except in the most extreme cases. Without using ghastly jargon, it will be much more of a learning journey whereby the school's self-evaluation, the contribution of SIPs and the dialogue with the inspection process will stimulate the school to raise its ambition and its performance and do better, rather than a "fail". I mention that because it is crucial to the philosophy of how we hope the new system will work.
	I have spoken at greater length, though not at as much length as some noble Lords would have wished. I hope that, at least for now, I have persuaded various Members of the Committee not to press their amendments.

The Earl of Listowel: I rise to speak briefly in the full knowledge that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will wish to proceed. To be brief, I wish to thank the Minister for his customary thoroughness in his response and for his understanding. I look forward to studying his reply.
	However, I have two points to raise. The first is about the specificity of distinguishing these children from all other children. This is a debate that we had during the Children Bill and I recognise the concerns about the matter. There was a careful consideration of this in this House and the conclusion that we reached was that these children have had poor outcomes in the past and that they are children of the state whom the state has unfortunately failed in the past. In these circumstances it is perhaps right to make an exception for these children. But I shall look carefully at what the Minister said, consider it and see what the options are for the next stage.
	With regard to local authorities, it is very welcome that the responsibility for these children has been laid so clearly on the doorstep of the local authority. It is for them to ensure that these children find the stability that they have lacked in the past. We also now recognise throughout government the importance of partnership working. I hope that I have been emphasising that it is for local authorities and schools to work in partnership together to improve outcomes for these children. Local authorities have the principal responsibility, but schools also play a very important part. This may also be a point to which I shall return at the next stage of the Bill. However, I thank the Minister for his response.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, before commenting on my amendment, which started this group, I shall say a word about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, with which I have an enormous amount of sympathy. My focus on out-of-classroom learning is not only on physical education and participation in sport, but also on field studies in my own subject, biology. I think that such study has suffered over the years from the kinds of problems outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I would like to see something done to improve teachers' abilities to take students outside the classroom for the kind of educational enrichment that is so important to the subject.
	Before adding the obligation to inspect out-of-classroom learning, it might be helpful if we could also incorporate into this Bill something like the provision contained in the Private Member's Bill of Julian Brazier MP which was introduced in another place. That legislation addresses the problems of the providers of outdoor activities in relation to the risks involved. Although it had the support of the DfES, it was dropped from the agenda of another place. I detect considerable support around your Lordships' House for something of that kind. That needs to go hand in hand with what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is trying to achieve in inspections. But perhaps we ought to talk among ourselves about that before the next stage of the Bill.
	I thank the Minister for his response to my amendment. I look forward to talking more about these subjects after the break, when we come to Amendment No. 10. I was not expecting him to say specifically what the contribution of individual teachers and other members of staff was meant to be, but I am sure that he will accept that looking at a very big subject such as the school's contribution to the child's well-being is like eating an elephant—it must be done one bite at a time.
	It is clear to me that many teachers and other members of staff are concerned about what they will be expected to do and the basis on which they will be inspected. Anything that the noble Lord has to say on that subject is helpful in setting their minds at rest that the demand will be reasonable and appropriate to their responsibilities in the school. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Andrews: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Northern Ireland

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I should like to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on Northern Ireland.
	"As the House will be aware, a major robbery took place at the Northern Bank in Belfast just before Christmas. At the end of last week, the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland indicated that, in his professional opinion, responsibility for that robbery should be attributed to the Provisional IRA. He also made the point that, quite apart from the massive scale of this robbery, over £26 million, it was in no sense a victimless crime.
	"Two families were kidnapped and threatened with death if they did not co-operate with the criminals concerned. In the case of one of the families, the gang, masquerading as police officers, tricked their way into the house by claiming that a family member had been killed in a car accident. Once inside, they donned masks, produced guns and threatened the family. One of the hostages was later taken to an isolated forest where her car was burned and she was abandoned in the snow. She was forced to struggle in severe weather and in darkness across country to seek assistance in a highly distressed state and suffering from hypothermia. I want to reiterate my utter condemnation of those who planned and carried out this appalling crime.
	"The chief constable's public remarks were necessarily constrained by the ongoing investigation. He has briefed me fully on the background that led him to make the statement he did. I have no doubt that the chief constable's opinion is well founded. He did not rush to judgment.
	"The Police Service of Northern Ireland thought initially that five groups could have been responsible for the robbery. Only when a great deal of evidence had been sifted did the chief constable make his statement. He is a man of the highest calibre and integrity, leading a professional team of officers acting entirely independently and objectively in pursuit of the criminals concerned.
	"The Irish Government have also made their views on this aspect of the matter entirely clear. There will, of course, be a further dispassionate assessment of the position when the Independent Monitoring Commission makes its next report. I shall be discussing with the Irish Government the timescale in which that report should be made.
	"On the immediate follow-up to the robbery, I welcome the announcement by the Northern Bank of their intention to withdraw from circulation their current banknotes and replace them with notes of a different design and colour. This decision will reduce very materially the value of the robbery to the perpetrators. We will be discussing with the bank how best to publicise the detailed arrangements.
	"Since the Chief Constable's statement, there has been much comment about the impact of these developments on the political process in Northern Ireland. I cannot hide my own judgment that the impact is deeply damaging.
	"On 9 December I came to the House to report on the proposals by the British and Irish Governments for a comprehensive agreement which had been published the previous day. They represented a series of statements that would have been made if there had at that stage been an overall agreement. They included a statement to the effect that paramilitary activity by the Provisional IRA would cease immediately and definitely. There was also a statement, to which the Democratic Unionist Party was committed, that after a period during which the good faith of the Provisional IRA's commitments had been demonstrated, an inclusive power-sharing executive would be re-established in March this year. I need hardly remind Members of the House that this would have been nearly two and a half years after the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland were suspended.
	"In the event, there was an outstanding issue which could not be resolved in relation to the transparency of the process of decommissioning. But as I said to the House in December, we had made significant and substantial progress, not least in rebuilding the trust and confidence which is the essential requirement of a stable, inclusive, cross-community devolved administration in Northern Ireland.
	"Today, I deeply regret that that progress has been put in jeopardy. I cannot forecast with certainty when it will prove possible to re-establish an inclusive power-sharing executive, which the Government continue to believe provides the best long-term guarantee of peace and stability. We shall not abandon our commitment to that ultimate goal.
	"We are, however, in no doubt that that can be achieved only if the Provisional IRA gives up not only terrorism but also all the other forms of criminality in which it is implicated. Unionists in Northern Ireland have made clear that if those tests are met, they will work with Sinn Fein in a power-sharing executive. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said repeatedly, it is entirely reasonable for Unionists to withhold their co-operation until those tests are met.
	"We have consistently made clear that if a political settlement is to be achieved, any illegal activity has to come to an end. The documents published before Christmas were unambiguous on that point.
	"Let me, however, reiterate to the House that this Government will not promote a political settlement in which a party inextricably linked to an organisation which has carried out major criminal acts can assume responsibilities again in a devolved administration. Nor could it take on the further responsibilities implied by the devolution of justice and policing while criminal activity of the kind we have just seen, and the capacity to plan and undertake such activity, continues in existence. It would be ludicrous for anyone to suggest that the people of Northern Ireland, from whatever background, voted for a political settlement on that basis in the referendum held in 1998.
	"Against that background, it is clear to me that decisions and responses on this are now needed from Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA. The comments from the Irish Government in recent days indicate that they share that view.
	"Without the required responses from Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA I cannot see how we shall be able to reinvigorate the political talks that must precede a comprehensive settlement. And without those responses the Governments, and indeed this House, will need to consider how best in the changed circumstances to bring pressure to bear on the republican movement to complete the transition to exclusively peaceful and democratic means, including any penalties that might be applied to Sinn Fein.
	"I spoke to the Irish Foreign Minister on Friday and will be meeting him when he returns from a visit to the tsunami-stricken areas of Asia. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister will be meeting the Taoiseach towards the end of the month. In the mean time, I expect to be talking to the Northern Ireland parties over the course of the next two weeks with a view to hearing first hand their assessments of the current position and their views on a number of difficult questions that now face us, including, for example, on the appropriateness of continuing to pay the salaries and allowances of the individuals elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly in November 2003 and on our proposed way forward on the regulation of donations to political parties in Northern Ireland.
	"I cannot disguise my deep disappointment at what has happened. But my disappointment is as nothing by comparison with the disappointment of the people of Northern Ireland. They deserve better, given the progress in so many areas of their lives in recent years.
	"The Government, continuing to work in close partnership with the Irish Government, will be doing everything they can to ensure that this progress is not lost and that we can continue to move forward as soon as possible to a comprehensive political settlement. In the meantime, my colleagues and I will continue to apply ourselves to governing Northern Ireland as effectively as possible in the absence of a devolved administration".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council for repeating the Statement made in another place earlier today by the Secretary of State. I am also grateful to her and to the Secretary of State for allowing us early viewing of the Statement.
	Today's Statement comes as a profound disappointment to all of us who want to see the restoration of devolution in Northern Ireland on a stable and inclusive basis, and I am sure as a massive disappointment to the majority of the population of Northern Ireland. At this stage, I should like to offer our commiseration with the victims of this crime who must have been seriously traumatised by their experiences; and with the lady who must have very nearly died of hypothermia that night. This crime will have serious implications for the future of the political process.
	On Friday the chief constable was unequivocal in apportioning blame for the robbery at the Northern Bank last month to the Provisional IRA. He quite rightly described it as a brutal and violent crime, totally at odds with a commitment to "exclusively democratic and peaceful means" and paragraph 13 of the Joint Declaration issued in 2003.
	The Provisional IRA is, of course, one part of the republican movement—"inextricably linked" with Sinn Fein, as the Independent Monitoring Commission said in its report last April. Some senior members, of Sin Fein are also senior members of PIRA. Sinn Fein, particularly through their senior members, are in a position to exercise considerable influence on PIRA's major policy decisions.
	Therefore, is it not clear, as the Taoiseach himself said at the weekend, that senior members of Sinn Fein would have known about this robbery at precisely the same time that they were negotiating a process which, if successful, would have seen them have four ministerial posts in the Government of Northern Ireland?
	Does the Secretary of State agree that this renders Sinn Fein completely unfit to hold ministerial office for the foreseeable future unless and until they have turned their backs on all paramilitary and criminal activity for good?
	Is it not entirely reasonable and justifiable in the light of the chief constable's statement that other political parties should refuse to entertain any thoughts of sharing power with Sinn Fein while that party remains linked in any way to organised crime, gangsters and terrorists?
	There is no way that we in my party could support any legislation designed to devolve powers over policing and criminal justice to Northern Ireland until we are certain that all the ministers concerned in a devolved executive are committed to supporting the PSNI and the rule of law.
	I have a number of further questions for the noble Baroness and the Secretary of State. In the light of the intelligence now in the possession of the chief constable, is there not a case for looking again at the cases of individual criminals released early on licence under the Belfast agreement?
	In view of the suspicion that the profits of crime are helping to fund political parties with paramilitary links, will the Secretary of State reconsider the Government's decision to continue the exemptions that political parties in Northern Ireland have from the normal rules on publishing their accounts and receiving foreign donations? If nothing has changed for the better when the relevant statutory instrument comes before your Lordships' House, I shall be arguing against it.
	Will the Secretary of State, the noble Baroness and her colleagues table a Motion in the House of Commons to suspend the privileges and parliamentary allowances that were exceptionally given to Sinn Fein's four MPs, even though they refused to take their seats? It is just wrong, I suggest, for taxpayers' money to be doled out in this way to a party that remains "inextricably linked" to organised crime.
	Finally, just before the Leeds Castle talks in September, the Prime Minister said that if there was no deal:
	"I think we've got to look for another way forward".
	There is no deal. It is time to look for another way forward. Either we seek to restore devolution without Sinn Fein until that party comes up to the democratic standards expected of everyone else, or, as both the Irish News and the Belfast Telegraph have suggested in the past couple of days, we should continue with a more accountable form of direct rule. I emphasise the words "accountable form". I know it is difficult for Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office, but there are some very serious issues before the representatives of the Northern Ireland people. They need the democratic process that will enable them to have their say and to hold Ministers accountable.
	In the words of yesterday's Belfast News Letter, it is time for the political process to move on and for a society that is peaceful and prosperous to be created. The people of Northern Ireland deserve nothing less.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council for repeating the Statement made in another place. I should like to express the sympathy of noble Lords on these Benches for those victims who were abducted in the course of this robbery.
	That said, I have to ask: what was the purpose of the chief constable's statement? We accept what he said; Mr Orde is a chief constable of the highest quality and integrity, but the fact is that this statement is almost without precedent. It would have been more reassuring to have had a statement that a number of arrests had been made. Can any be expected, or is the chief constable's statement to be a substitute for such arrests? There is a real problem in that there has been too much concentration, in terms of the ceasefires, on regulating and diminishing paramilitary activity, as opposed to criminality. We have seen the results of that differential policy in the Northern Bank robbery.
	If the purpose of the chief constable's statement is unclear, the consequences, as the Statement says and the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has confirmed, are stark and obvious. I predicted more than a year ago that if devolution was not restored fully by last November, a year after the elections to Stormont, it would be put off for a generation. I suspect that the events of the past few days will lead to that conclusion. None of us would like it, but I think it is becoming almost inevitable.
	The restoration of devolution will not be practical if Sinn Fein is excluded. The idea that there can be devolution involving the other parties but not Sinn Fein is politically not on.
	We have to pick up the pieces from the fallout. There are two immediate reactions. First, I was pleased to note that the pay and allowances for members of the Legislative Assembly are to be looked at seriously. I have asked for this to happen for more than a year. I believe—and I ask the Leader of the House to consider this—that we should give notice that these will be stopped three months hence. There is no point in continuing to pay half a million pounds a month of taxpayers' money to keep a show going that is not on the road.
	Further disapplication for Northern Ireland parties from the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 would be a serious mistake. I wrote to the Leader of the House about this yesterday, and the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has also raised it. Such a move would make money laundering into the coffers of a party that much more easy if there is no proper set of accounts listing donations. As I have said privately to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, we, too, would find it extremely difficult to support such an order.
	Secondly, again I echo the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, in asking how government by direct rule is to be held publicly accountable with adequate scrutiny. It is quite clear that the existing Westminster structures cannot do justice to the amount of Northern Ireland legislation we are having to consider. One has only to recall our recent attempts in this House to look at the budget. We had only a couple of hours. As my noble friend Lord Shutt pointed out, he, as a local councillor, would normally have spent eight weeks considering the budget for Calderdale local authority. What are we going to do to revamp our provisions for looking at Northern Ireland legislation?
	Can some provision be made for pre-legislative scrutiny by local Northern Ireland politicians? I suggested some time ago that perhaps the Assembly Members could be used as a committee for pre-legislative scrutiny, which would greatly help us in Westminster. While the Assembly may well have to be stood down, I wonder whether it is beyond humankind's contrivance to create a consultative body which could help us here.
	As others have said, this is a very sad time for Northern Ireland, coming at the end of a process where hopes had been raised to expect a return to devolution. That has not happened, it is not going to happen, and we must now look at the consequences.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I totally share the disappointment expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Smith of Clifton, about the process.
	On the specific questions, let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that I totally agree that Sinn Fein and the IRA are inextricably linked. The Taoiseach is right to point that out, as this Government have done consistently. As the chief constable said, it is too early to establish exact details, but it is clear that the activities of the IRA undermined the political negotiations which took place before Christmas.
	In this process, we have made it absolutely clear that criminality must be eradicated. There is no place for terrorists within the Northern Ireland Government. That was the Government's position and it remains their position. It is absolutely clear that the political institutions of the agreement will not function while criminality continues. It is our view that the onus is on republicanism to find a solution by bringing a definitive end to all its illegal activities.
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said that it is important to look for another way forward. Of course we need to talk to the parties. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is already going through that process. We need to talk to our colleagues in the Irish Government.
	As regards the specific issue of parliamentary allowances and Sinn Fein MPs, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made it absolutely clear that we shall be considering a range of possibilities in the coming days. We need to consider the most effective way of bringing pressure to bear on the republican movement to ensure that it makes a definitive break with violence. A whole range of options is being looked at. I know that it is an issue to which we shall return and debate not only in the Chamber, but also I hope with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in a more informal atmosphere.
	The question of accountability was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. I totally recognise the concerns which were raised across the Chamber. As noble Lords know, proposals have been made by the SDLP and the DUP which suggested a committee of the Assembly. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, spoke about the importance of pre-legislative scrutiny. We will be looking at all of these proposals because I entirely agree that the present situation as regards the accountability of direct-rule Ministers needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.
	As regards the issue of licensed prisoners and their recall if they are connected with the robbery—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran—I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would not hesitate to use the powers that he has to suspend the licence of any ex-prisoner involved if he is satisfied that he has broken, or is likely to break, any licence conditions. That has always been the position and it continues to be so.
	Regarding the continued exemptions for Northern Ireland political parties from the normal rules on publishing their accounts and receiving foreign donations, I hear very clearly what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, who has written to me on the point. Noble Lords know that we intend to move away from the current exemptions. We have been discussing new arrangements with the Northern Ireland parties, the Irish Government and the Electoral Commission. Legitimate concerns have been raised about intimidation and the need for Irish citizens to be able to donate to nationalist parties. I indicated that we would be seeking an extension of the current exemption. I hear the concerns expressed in the Chamber about this issue. I shall be talking to my right honourable friend about it and will report back to noble Lords as soon as I can.
	The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, said that he was not clear about the purpose of the statement made by the chief constable and that it was without precedent. It is not without precedent in Northern Ireland, but it is in England and Wales. There is always a huge amount of pressure in Northern Ireland as regards attribution. Noble Lords will remember, for example, Tohill last February. When he made his statement the chief constable made it absolutely clear that speculation on the matter was beginning to interfere with the investigation and he felt that the time was right to make the attribution. But I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, that this is not a substitute for arrests. The investigation is in hand involving more than 40 officers working around the clock.
	On the final point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, as regards allowances to the Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, I can tell him that we shall be looking at it in the very near future.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. This was not a victimless crime. Families were intimidated, families were kidnapped and families were terrorised. I also send out tonight my sympathies from this House and hope that these families may rebuild their lives quickly.
	The noble Baroness said that her disappointment in this escapade is nothing compared with the disappointment of the people of Northern Ireland. I could not agree more. But is not the Minister also aware that this is the latest in a long line of links between Sinn Fein/IRA and criminality that the people of Northern Ireland have had to endure over many years?
	The Northern Bank robbery follows the break-in at Castlereagh police station, the Stormont spy-ring, the well known activities of the Colombian three with the FARC rebels, not to mention the nightly punishment beatings and continued violence, all of which were, and continue to be, sanctioned and carried out by IRA/Sinn Fein personnel. Do not the Government understand that the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland, already at breaking point, as a result of this latest heist, has been absolutely and completely shattered? If confidence in Sinn Fein/IRA is in tatters then this Government do not fare much better in the eyes of the Northern Ireland people. Without firm and decisive action against Sinn Fein/IRA, this Statement tonight will be seen as little more than an empty, meaningless gesture.
	The Government must show strength and their willingness to stand up against terrorists and criminals. Such people simply cannot be allowed to continue to be the driving force in Northern Ireland's political agenda. The driving seat should be reserved for democratic parties only.
	I am pleased to hear tonight that, perhaps as an indication of the Government's willingness to take action, they will seriously consider, where the evidence suggests that it is necessary, recalling those republican prisoners currently out on licence who have been involved in criminal and terrorist activities.
	On a final note, the noble Baroness mentioned that the Government were looking at the regulation of donations to political parties. While we all welcome the transparency of donations, is such an idea not actually counter-productive? Sinn Fein does not need political donations, it robs banks!

Baroness Amos: My Lords, perhaps I may make three points in response to the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. The Government will continue to work for a peaceful outcome in Northern Ireland. We will continue to work for an inclusive process. I also agree with the noble Lord that we must look at the areas where action can be taken. We have made it absolutely clear that there is no room for criminality in the political process. That remains our position and we will work very hard to find the best mechanisms at our disposal to take action as regards what has happened.

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I must declare an interest, not in the robbery, but as a member of the policing board in Northern Ireland. In saying that, I should like to defend the police to a certain extent against some of the barracking they have had. It is amazing that, knowing how forensically aware the terrorists are and how clever and thorough they are at covering their tracks, the chief constable has been able to say what he said and that is to his credit.
	Paragraph 12 of the Statement refers to required responses from Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA. We have to get down to the practical problem. We should forget about the consequences for one minute, but consider what is happening. What are the responses now that the Government require? We want to know what they are in detail: most certainly Sinn Fein will want to know to see how to get round them. We need to know those responses now. We need to know the timescale of those responses. We need to know for how long Sinn Fein/IRA have to run clean before we are asked to believe them again. What or where will there be verification of what they say because it is quite clear that the verification that the Government were standing by until very recently is not enough and it is lacking?
	If you are dealing with criminals such as these and totally untrustworthy, dare I say, liars, there is only one form of verification that can apply—the intelligence from behind them. I am well aware, and so are many others in your Lordships' House, that the intelligence-gathering effort has been greatly decreased against the very echelons of the people who committed this crime—and that includes against the Sinn Fein leadership. No one should be afraid of the intelligence services listening in or doing whatever if they have nothing to hide. But we have seen a large reduction in intelligence gathering. I am not saying that it would have prevented this crime—the perpetrators have had practice for this in Strabane, kidnapping people and so on—but not having that reduction might have contributed much to preventing it.
	Part of that reduction is in the total number of patrols in Northern Ireland. The military are being told, "You are not to patrol". The police are being told, "You have got to do it on your own and call in the military only when necessary". Intelligence is not just what one person hears over a mobile phone. Intelligence is gathered from grass roots leading up to that. It is association; it is people being seen with other people; it is people carrying out "reccies" of buildings and so on.
	My question to the Government is, what are they going to do about it? It is no good saying that these statesmen are their friends and they will not look in their back yard. It is not good enough for us.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, perhaps I may tell the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, that the Government have made it absolutely clear that not only do we want to see an end to all violence, but we want to see an end to all criminality. In seeking that we want to see the actions taken on the ground which will deliver that. With respect to the noble Viscount's statement on intelligence and policing, I reject his claims about a reduction in intelligence gathering. I understand that the senior investigating officer in this case has access to all the intelligence, irrespective of where it comes from. Of course I have full confidence in the investigation team.

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I was referring to prior to the incident, not the amount of intelligence received after £26 million had gone. I was talking about the six months in the year prior to it.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am aware of that, but one of the reasons why the Serious Organised Crime Agency was created in relation to Northern Ireland was precisely to bring together the intelligence and policing aspects, so that they were able to share information.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, did not the Government recently justify their decision permanently to reduce the overall infantry strength of the British Army on the grounds that the Police Service for Northern Ireland needed now, and would need, less support from the Army in providing security for Northern Ireland? Was that decision not founded upon the Government having been persuaded that Mr Adams, Mr McGuinness and Sinn Fein were trustworthy? Where does that leave that decision now and should it not be urgently revisited?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, that decision was made on the basis of the length of time that we have seen ceasefires in operation in Northern Ireland and the implications of that for our military and for policing in Northern Ireland.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I believe that the political repercussions of this matter will reverberate for a long time, but I do not wish to ask a question about that. I am grateful to the Lord President for repeating the Statement in this House, but I must ask her whether she believes that there has been adequate transparency in terms of what really happened.
	We know that Northern Bank notes are distinctive. We know that many of them can be traced. But are we not being led to believe that the whole £26 million is traceable? We have not been told what notes from other banks, including used notes and notes from the Bank of England, form part of that £26 million and whether it will be easy for the criminals to disperse that money. So we need some information on that if we are fully to understand how these criminals, even at this late stage, can be thwarted in benefiting from the money that they have stolen.
	It has been suggested—indeed, a member of my own party suggested to the Secretary of State—that the numbers that are available on banknotes that are traceable should be circulated to every household and business in Northern Ireland. The citizenry of Northern Ireland—and that is the only place that Northern Bank notes are likely to be circulated—should be recruited to a man and to a woman over the next 20 weeks, which will be critical, given that that is the time it will take for the Northern Bank to print new notes and withdraw the old notes. Can the Minister assure us tonight that the numbers on traceable notes will be circulated to every household and business in Northern Ireland? That would help.
	I also wish to ask the Minister about policing. I share many of the doubts that have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, about the chief constable. Although he ameliorated what he had to say, I shall not do so, because I believe that we have a police command which is preoccupied with statistics. As your Lordships know, statistics can be misleading. If there was any intelligence available—and there should have been, given the background intelligence in Northern Ireland over 30 years—that there would be a robbery of some sort, why, when there was a tip-off from a traffic warden that something suspicious was happening outside Northern Bank headquarters, were two "peelers" sent along on foot instead of a tactical support group dispatched to deal with the incident?
	Those are questions that people like myself, who have served in the security forces over the years, wish to know, because we feel that there is an incompetence in policing that should not happen and that the responsibility rests with the chief constable.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, while I can appreciate the frustration of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, I know that he will understand that I really cannot comment on the details of the investigation. However, I will tell the noble Lord that the chief constable did cover in some detail in his statement on Friday the amounts and the types of notes that were stolen. I also said in the Statement that we will be discussing with the bank how best to publicise the detailed arrangements once the bank has put in place its intention to withdraw from circulation its current banknotes. I appreciate the frustration, but I cannot say any more at this stage.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, can the Leader of the House say whether the Special Branch has been severely reduced in the past two or three years, on the recommendation of the Patten commission? It has been said in the press—and I do not know the truth—that a number of the normal police sources have had to be discarded because they were considered to be potentially criminal. You do not get inside criminal groups without having someone with normal connections with them. I should very much like to know whether the police have in any way been given the reasonable prospect of penetrating the IRA at this level.
	I greatly respect the work of the Serious Organised Crime Agency and I think that the Government are right to treat this as a straight criminal, rather than political, issue. But it is a political issue, too—all the more so because we have seen the Stormont break-in and the IRA activity in the Special Branch involving the removal of records. Nothing has been done about either of those incidents and we are always told that that is because there are legal procedures which cannot be hurried. We are talking about three years. I feel that something needs to be done to enable the police to do the job that they should be able to do.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Park. A great deal of concern has been expressed about a reduction in numbers as a result of the merging of the two groups. I can say to the House that the chief constable has said consistently that the police have adequate resources in place to deal with any situation that may arise, and they are of course supported by the military as necessary. I said in response to an earlier question that the decisions on the military in Northern Ireland were made in relation to the decisions on the ceasefires.
	It remains absolutely vital that the police and other security forces can respond flexibly within the context of Northern Ireland. My understanding is that they feel able, and sufficiently resourced, to do that. If any concerns in that respect are brought to my attention, I shall of course write to the noble Baroness.

Lord Fitt: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us whether, in advance of the Statement made by the chief constable, discussions were held with the British Government, the Irish Government and, more particularly, with the American Administration? Has she any idea how the American Administration view this crime?
	There is another serious element to this matter. When the robbery took place, two of the people who were so badly mishandled by the robbers were Catholics. A story has been going around Northern Ireland over the past few weeks that this was an inside job. People in Northern Ireland believe that, if it was an inside job, it certainly did not involve any Orangeman, Protestant or Paisley supporter. The suspicion is that it was a Catholic employed in the bank. That puts every Catholic who is in any position of trust in any bank in Northern Ireland in severe jeopardy. Did the IRA take that into consideration?
	The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, desperately seeking a way to continue with the peace process, said that committees should be set up to inquire into the government of Northern Ireland. On those committees would sit two MPs—McGuinness and Adams—who are Members of this Parliament and also Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. As they exclude themselves from sitting in the House of Commons, would they be excluded from the committees advocated by the noble Lord?
	On the question of finance from abroad, I vividly remember speaking in this House against any exoneration when I was trying desperately to include the IRA in the legislation at that time.
	I think that the noble Baroness may be able to answer the following question but I ask it directly of the Prime Minister. In the absence of arrests and of some of the money being found, will members of Sinn Fein be permitted to run daily into Downing Street? Are we going to be told that we are still in search of a political solution by way of devolution? From what I hear, the Taoiseach in Dublin would be totally unable to have further discussions with them if the present situation were to be maintained.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that in the Statement it is made clear by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that he was briefed on the background by the chief constable. As I said in response to a number of questions, my right honourable friend will now be having meetings with the parties, the Irish Government and others in order to look at ways of taking this matter forward.

Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 (Specified Organisations) Order 2004

Baroness Amos: rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 17 November be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the decision to despecify the UDA/UFF was taken by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland following a period of contact between officials in the Northern Ireland Office and the political representatives of loyalism. The Secretary of State himself spoke to them directly prior to making a final decision.
	In explaining his decision to despecify, the Secretary of State said that it was a further step towards resolving the problems that had dogged political progress in Northern Ireland and towards achieving an inclusive future for all, based on an enduring political settlement. However, the Government are mindful of the consequences of the decision for others, particularly victims. I take this opportunity to reassure victims that we have not forgotten their suffering, and we shall continue to support and work with them.
	When the UPRG made its statement on 14 November 2004, it contained a number of important undertakings. The first was its commitment to work towards the day when, to use its own words, there will no longer be a need for the UDA or the UFF. It reaffirmed that the UDA will desist from all military activity and declared that the organisation's strategy will focus on community development, job creation, social inclusion and community politics. The second was its agreement to enter into a process with the Government which will see an end to all paramilitary activity. The third was confirmation that it will re-engage with the decommissioning commission. Indeed, I understand that that has already begun.
	However, the Government have always made clear that, while they welcome this initiative, all paramilitary organisations will be judged by their deeds and not by their words alone. To that end, I have taken a close interest in reports of loyalist paramilitary activity over the past few months. I am encouraged by information provided to me by the PSNI which shows that, since the UPRG statement in November, the number of incidents involving loyalists generally, and the UDA/UFF in particular, has fallen dramatically.
	In recognising that, I wish to acknowledge the efforts of the UPRG. I am also appreciative of the contribution of members of other political parties who have helped to create the conditions whereby this initiative has at least been given a chance to develop.
	It is my sincere hope that all paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland will recognise that the Government are willing to encourage and facilitate those who are prepared to leave violence behind and create a new way forward for their communities. We agree with the UPRG that the loyalist community's enemies are issues such as poverty, social deprivation, drugs and crime. Those are not problems faced only in loyalist communities; they are issues which affect everyone in Northern Ireland. I earnestly hope that all organisations which claim to represent their communities will acknowledge that fact and work with us to tackle common issues so that all in Northern Ireland, no matter where they come from or who they vote for, can enjoy a society free from the burden of paramilitary and drug-related crime.
	In mentioning crime, I remind the House that the UDA remains a proscribed organisation. The police will pursue relentlessly any criminal activity undertaken by its members or those of any other group. All in this House who have followed the undoubted progress in Northern Ireland since the signing of the Good Friday agreement will agree that the time has long since passed for all paramilitary groups—loyalist and republican—to cease their activities once and for all and to decommission the weapons which have brought so much suffering.
	The future that we all seek for Northern Ireland can come about only through inclusive, peaceful, political engagement. This order is an important move in that direction and I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the order laid before the House on 17 November be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Amos.)

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council for introducing the order, but when it appeared on the Order Paper I must say that I was concerned and not altogether delighted.
	My personal view is that it is almost tactless to leave the order on the Order Paper after the happenings of recent days. It is an extremely unwise time to pass such an instrument. As I understand it, there is no special hurry for it, and a little more due consideration of the involvement of people in the bank robbery, about which we know nothing, would have been wise. It would not have landed the Government in any difficulties just to have postponed the order quietly. I am not at all happy. I shall not divide the House, but I wish the Government to know that I am far from happy about the order. I think that they are making a mistake.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran: today is hardly a propitious time to move the order.
	We shall not oppose the order, but I will take the opportunity to ask the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council what exactly the term "ceasefire" means. We have asked that question before. It seems to be a very elastic, ambiguous, ill-defined concept. It seems to be defined by all and sundry as they like, with the result, as I said, that there has been a tendency to focus on paramilitary cessation, while crime is not taken into account—hence, perhaps, the Northern Bank robbery.
	It is also true that crime by loyalist paramilitaries is continuing. It is not so much paramilitary or military activity as what was once called "normal, decent crime". It is as corrosive as anything of moves towards the restoration of peace. The Government should come up with their own definition of "ceasefire" and tell us what it embraces and what it does not embrace. We cannot pick and choose about this. We have been led by the nose by the IRA and by loyalist paramilitary organisations, who have imposed their definition of "ceasefire", rather than having the body politic impose its definition.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, when I have to consider such an order, I do not know whether I am mad, the Government are mad or the world generally is mad. When we have just been discussing the difficulties with the criminality that exists in Northern Ireland, there is something wrong with deciding to despecify organisations such as the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Freedom Fighters.
	Johnny Adair is a member of one of those organisations. Apparently, he was released from prison today. God help the people of Bolton: he has been inflicted on them for some reason. I am led to understand that the Government provided him with free transport out of the Province. I read at the weekend that he does not feel himself to have been banished and that, when he wants to come back to settle old scores, he will do so.
	We are talking about two despicable organisations here. They have killed members of the Catholic tradition and have killed each other, and they would be willing to kill members of the Catholic tradition and each other again for monetary benefit. They run the drugs trade and use it to get the finance that enables them to portray themselves as the defenders of a particular tradition. I belong to that tradition—the Protestant or Unionist tradition in Northern Ireland—and I despise every last one of those individuals.
	I feel that the Government have made a horrible mistake. The horror of it may not be seen at the moment, but it is a horrible mistake. I want to be wrong when I predict that the horror of it will be seen on the streets of Northern Ireland. We have had disappointments, but Northern Ireland is moving forward. It may be two steps forward and a step back, but at least people are beginning to think of normality. We should not turn the Province into a gangster state.
	There is no reason to despecify the two organisations. I am horrified that the Government have made that decision at this time. I just hope that I will not be standing here in a week, a month or a couple of months saying, "I told you so".

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I begin by saying that I totally appreciate the concerns expressed, especially in the light of the discussion that we have just had, but perhaps I can say two things to noble Lords. The first is that the Government have always made it clear that there is no acceptable level of violence. We have also made it absolutely clear that there is no room for criminality. However, it is also important, particularly at this point, to remember that, while we seek to punish the behaviour that we seek to eradicate, we must also encourage the behaviour that we seek to promote. Noble Lords will know that the decision that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made about these organisations was made in the round. He took account of all the criteria, and he made a judgment.
	The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, asked specifically what "ceasefire" meant. That question has been asked on a number of occasions. The requirements for an organisation to be considered on ceasefire and, therefore, eligible for despecification are set out in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. It does not mean that an organisation has ceased all activity. I know that we have discussed that point many times. It is precisely why the UDA remains an illegal organisation and why the police continue to pursue those in it who continue to commit crime. To the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, I say that despecification has no impact on Johnny Adair.
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, raised the issue of timing. Once my right honourable friend the Secretary of State had come to a decision that the UDA met the requirements of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, our legal obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998 required us to give effect to that decision and despecify the UDA at the earliest opportunity.
	I recognise the degree of scepticism around the Chamber. We all recognise that in such processes the unexpected as well as the expected can happen. At the moment I am hanging on to that, given the disappointment of the Statement that I made earlier this evening. I appreciate what noble Lords have said about not praying against the order. We shall continue to discuss these matters, not only in the Chamber but also outside. I value the way in which noble Lords have conducted the discussion this evening.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock when the Committee stage of the Education Bill will resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 7.40 to 8 p.m.]

Education Bill [HL]

House again in Committee on Clause 2.
	[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 10:
	Page 2, line 21, at end insert ", and
	( ) the contribution made by those schools to working with the children's services authority and the authority's relevant partners to improve the well-being of children, and relevant young people, within the authority's area"

Baroness Walmsley: In moving Amendment No. 10, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 29, which in the same group. We again pick up the Children Act agenda. We are really asking the Government to spell out more clearly how they see the integration of Ofsted and the CSCI.
	Under the Children Act 2004, a range of agencies have a duty to co-operate with each other to improve the well-being of children in the area. In the absence of a specific statutory duty on schools to co-operate, it is essential that their contribution to working with other agencies is properly evaluated. I think we all accept that.
	The revised Ofsted framework attempts to integrate the outcomes for children under Every Child Matters. But it is very difficult to see how inspectors will be able properly to assess an individual school's positive contribution to a child's health, safety, enjoyment, achievement and well-being, let alone how the school will function within the wider multi-agency context that we are about to see of the children's services authority.
	Historically, Ofsted, through its reliance on performance data to inform judgments, concentrates on that which is easily measurable. That is perfectly understandable. But fundamental questions, such as the happiness, the well-being and engagement of individual pupils within a school, are not so easily answered by a snapshot approach and are more likely to be accurately determined by ongoing monitoring and evaluation; in particular, that done by the school's own self-evaluation work.
	As many noble Lords said at Second Reading, including those on these Benches, the Bill makes reference to LEAs rather than to the children's services authority. Under the Bill's provisions, LEAs are increasingly sidelined in the view of some noble Lords, and the children's services authority so far does not exist. So it is difficult to see who will be responsible for encouraging individual schools to co-operate with other frontline services, as they must do if the objectives of the Children Act are to be achieved.
	It is clear that any attempt to marry the current school inspection schedule with the Every Child Matters indicators is fraught with difficulties as the two have very different starting points, overarching philosophies and purposes. While acknowledging the desire to reflect the Every Child Matters agenda within the Ofsted inspection framework in order to mainstream it, this can only ever be on a superficial level as the much broader and less easily measurable concerns of the former cannot be captured adequately by the snapshot approach of the latter. Noble Lords will see the difficulty.
	In isolation, individual teachers and schools will very likely in practice continue to be steered by the national focus on targets and performance tables. The questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer are these. How do the Government see Ofsted and the CSCI working together? How will the relationship between schools and the CSA and other relevant partners be counted? How will the inspectors judge whether the schools are doing their job in this respect? What does "social and economic well-being" mean here? What if unemployment is high in the area, leading to considerable social deprivation? Do the inspectors judge the schools to have failed because they have not produced young people with transferable skills?
	It is all very well running through a list of the five outcomes, but what we need to know is what this means in practical terms and how should this guide Ofsted and the judgment of the Ofsted inspectors.
	Finally, how does all this apply to young people? We do not know where the boundaries are. How far does Ofsted's remit extend? Does it extend to young people up to the age of 19 or beyond? Does the integrated agenda apply to the adult learning inspectorate which covers post-19 college level education and training? What about youth services? There are a lot of questions to answer. The Committee stage is the opportunity for us to probe some of these issues. I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten us a little.
	So, in moving Amendment No. 10 and in speaking to Amendment No. 29, I really seek to probe some of the Government's intentions in this respect. I beg to move.

Lord Filkin: I will not answer every one of the 15 difficult questions before breakfast, but I shall seek to focus on the nub and come back with correspondence on some of them because I think that that will be more helpful.
	Let me talk in broad terms because I think that that will be most useful at this stage of our proceedings. We fully recognise the importance of schools, both to improving the well-being of their own pupils and of the children and young people in the wider community. That is why we have recently published Every Child Matters: Change for Children in Schools, which sets out the implications for schools of the Children Act 2004 and the wide programme of change that we are introducing.
	As the document says,
	"pupils can't learn if they don't feel safe or if health problems are allowed to create barriers. And doing well in education is the most effective route for young people out of poverty and disaffection . . . Pupil performance and well-being go hand in hand".
	Earlier in our proceedings we stated that the well-being objectives are not separate from, in conflict with or irrelevant to the tradition of educational attainment. I think that there is a broad consensus in the Committee on that point. The debate concerns how it is put into practice.
	The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, attempts to include the contribution made by the school to working with the children's services authority and its relevant partners to improve the well-being of children and relevant young people within the authority's areas. That represents a substantial loss of focus away from the school and the work it does for its own pupils. That, we think, has to be the central purpose of the Bill and of the process. How is that school contributing to the well-being of its pupils and seeing that it is important that the well-being should go wider than just the narrow educational attainment, important though that is?
	We are fully in agreement with the principle that schools must play an active role within the wider community and cannot work in isolation from one another or from agencies providing services for children and young people and their families.
	Perhaps I may illustrate that point. In school inspections Ofsted already explores links with the wider community in several ways. It judges, first, the extent to which the curriculum meets the external needs; secondly, the way in which schools work with other services to guide, care for and support their pupils, and, thirdly, how well resources are managed and the effectiveness of any links with other providers of children's services.
	We are looking to schools, over time, to provide a core of extended services, either on site or across a cluster of local schools and providers. An extended schools prospectus to set out the extended schools strategy will be launched shortly. In schools with extended services, which have been included in pilot inspections, inspectors report on how the services were selected to meet the needs of the community and what impact they have on the children's development. The new school profile will include a section where schools write about their contribution to the wider community. We are looking at how best the profile can reflect the extended schools agenda to show the breadth of activity that the school undertakes.
	Key aspects of our "new relationship with schools" are currently being trialled. They include the allocation to each school of a school improvement partner (SIP), who will act as a critical friend. The school's engagement with the wider community and its effect on educational outcomes will feature in this single conversation between the SIP and the school. It is a crucial engagement between the local authority and the school as regards the contribution that the school makes.
	On inspection, we are introducing joint area reviews, which will draw together for the first time a range of inspection findings determined by a common approach, through an overall framework for inspection of children's services. That overall framework will apply to inspections of schools, supported by a more detailed framework relating specifically to schools. Joint area reviews, which will draw on evidence from school inspections, will then assess what it is like to be a child in a local authority area. That is the exact question that the process should address. They will report on how effectively the local partners work together to improve children's well-being. That will include an assessment of how effectively the schools work together as local partners.
	The new arrangements will be introduced from September 2005, so the process will go live very soon. Ofsted and the nine other relevant inspectorates and commissions are consulting on a draft of the framework and on arrangements and criteria for joint area reviews. The consultation period began on 6 December and runs until the end of February.
	I shall now address specific points, including how Ofsted will judge children's wider well-being. Inspectors will report on the spiritual, moral, cultural and social development of pupils as well as the five outcomes, but they will do so hanging off the self-evaluation process mentioned earlier. We will deal with that process in more detail later, because it is fundamental to the Bill.
	Ofsted's remit extends up to age 19 and includes youth services. How Ofsted judges well-being is currently being consulted on in the framework for schools. It might be helpful if I sent a copy of the framework to Front-Benchers so that they can appreciate more of its richness. I shall read it myself with interest.
	We have talked previously about burdens on schools. I have sought to signal why I do not believe that this process should be more burdensome. Again, the evidence from the pilot so far is extremely positive. In response to the question about how Ofsted and the CSA would work together, they already do so. They will be brought closer together in the children's services framework. If I can add more detail, I will be pleased to do so subsequently rather than now.
	Admissions protocols have been touched on obliquely. The issue of hard-to-place pupils coloured some of the debates on the Children Act 2004. On 18 November, Charles Clarke announced a package of guidance on hard-to-place pupils to support local education authorities in developing protocols for sharing such pupils across schools in the LEA fairly. The guidance was based on what is observed as good practice in some LEAs already. It is drawn up as part of a working group of LEAs, head teacher organisations, Churches, foundation and voluntary-aided schools. In other words, it replicates what the best LEAs and the best schools are doing already. We have distributed it as guidance to local authorities. When he announced the protocols, Charles Clarke said that he would be willing to use legislation to impose them if all LEAs did not have them in place by 1 September 2005.
	However, we should start from the premise that, if there is a clear argument for why this is good behaviour, and if the case has been made clearly on the basis of good local education authority practice, we should be cautious about legislating too quickly and imposing further burdens top-down on LEAs and schools in this context. We would therefore be well advised to recognise that there has been a good reception by many LEAs to the advice and to the development of protocols, to allow it time and space to breathe and to work, and to evaluate how it develops. That is perhaps the specific answer that hides behind some of the points.
	I have probably spoken at greater length than Members of the Committee wished. I shall check in Hansard to see whether I have missed some points and respond with further correspondence if it would be helpful.

Lord Hanningfield: The Minister referred to both LEAs and CSAs—the latter is not a terribly good acronym. The idea is that there will be just one body, a children's services authority (CSA). My own authority is moving that way. I would rather that local government did everything rather than having a lot of confusing acronyms, which people do not always understand.
	Can the Minister comment on the time frame? The Government clearly support the Children Act 2004. It brings together a lot of issues that should have been brought together over the years in order to make certain that agencies work together to support families and children. I have local authority experience and I foresee that there will be a problem in resolving some of the issues in this legislation with the earlier legislation. Will the Minister clarify how the Government envisage the LEAs and CSAs coming together into one body with one policy?

Lord Filkin: The noble Lord, Lord Beresford, has taken me to task with great courtesy for demonstrating my old-fashioned language. I shall expunge the word "LEAs" from my vocabulary henceforth. He is right. We are talking about the children's services authority, which is the relevant local authority—that is, the principal local authority rather than the shire district—giving its leadership through the children's trust, and the children's trust mechanism bringing into place all the other key partners who have a responsibility in contributing towards the children's agenda in that area.
	The noble Lord is right: that is what is important and radical about the Children Act. At this time of night, he is besting me at answering exactly how that will work out in practice with all the historical functions. But the core message—and a number of people are clear on this matter—is that this is the biggest offer to local government affirming its local community leadership role that there has been for many a long year.
	When I had a meagre sandwich lunch with the chief executive of the LGA recently, there was a sense that that was recognised. This is a major opportunity for local government leadership.
	I am wandering off the point. The Children Bill affirmed the policy and this Bill co-ordinates it, partly in the way in which it tries to get out of the detail of telling schools and inspectors how to deliver this and judges them instead on the outcomes. In other words, it is a great agenda for local government, and—through the spirit of self-evaluation—it is a positive agenda for schools as well. I have spoken at length. I will reflect on the challenges that the noble Lord, Lord Beresford, has given and see if I can add further comments later.

Baroness Walmsley: Does the Minister wish to speak?

Lord Filkin: I want to apologise for getting names wrong. When I referred to "the noble Lord, Lord Beresford", I meant to address the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield.

Baroness Walmsley: I am grateful to the Minister for the additional information that he has just given us. The information from pilot schemes and the extended schools' prospectus that we expect soon will all be enlightening on how this will work.
	Before I withdraw the amendment, I would like to pick the Minister up on one point. Early in his response he suggested that my amendment would prevent schools focusing on their own pupils. I was under the impression that under the new obligations the Government expect schools to have some responsibility for all the children in their area, not only those who choose to come to their schools. For example, there may be facilities that should be made available to other children in the area through partnerships between schools. That is happening more and more. Schools should have some responsibility for children who are not pupils on their register. Can the Minister explain what he meant by that?

Lord Filkin: The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Increasingly, our vision is that schools will recognise that they can add value to what they give to the development of children by working in a co-operative manner with each other. The protocols around admission processes are one specific example, but it goes much wider than that.
	As the noble Baroness implied, when considering the concept of extended schools it is implausible that every single school would have all the functions on the school premises that could ideally be placed there. It would not work like that. Therefore a cluster of schools would provide additional facilities that could be shared between them in exactly the way she implied. I apologise if in a sense I have spoken too crudely, but that is precisely the style of behaviour that we believe is necessary. Moreover, the school improvement partner will discuss these issues with the school because such co-operative behaviour best serves the children in the area; a beggar-my-neighbour approach would not.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: Perhaps I may chip in to point out that there is so much going on in this area that is exciting and even somewhat bewildering. Does the Minister intend that the partnerships should cover not only local authority schools, but also independent schools? I do not think that that has been addressed so far. Given the various articles and other publicity that I have read, a great deal is going on almost via the back door—indeed, in some areas it is being described as the back-door nationalisation of schools. Quite honestly, I think I welcome that. The more partnership we have to improve standards throughout the education system, the better. It would be interesting to hear a little more from the Minister.

Lord Filkin: I am unbriefed on this so I shall make a few observations in principle. As noble Lords would expect, the central thrust of our policy focuses on schools that are effectively either directly part of the state system by being maintained or are at one remove in the form of academies and foundation partnerships. They are the primary focus of this process of change. However, while for most children it is crucial that state-supported education fulfils their needs, it should be recognised that there are private and other forms of schooling. I do not think that we should not look to co-operative relationships between them where they meet the interests of children on both sides. I do not believe that we would wish to be doctrinal. However, this is the reverse of ex cathedra; it is the Minister giving some personal reflections which no doubt will be contradicted by letters later on.

Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for his clarification of my earlier question and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 11:
	Page 2, line 21, at end insert ", and
	"( ) the degree to which schools are developing rigorous internal procedures of self evaluation"

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 32. It may be useful to refresh our memories. We are still talking about the first subsection of Clause 2 and considering only the functions of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England. So far among those functions we have debated the issue of well-being, how it can be measured and how it ties in with the new agenda set out in the Children Act 2004. I turn now to a slightly different theme, one that has been flagged up in the new relationship for schools outlined in the White Paper that underpins this Bill, and set out in the Government's Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners published last July.
	The whole concept of schools being able to move from lengthy inspections to short, sharp ones is being introduced because it is felt that the experience of some 12 years of schools inspection means that, in a sense, schools can move on. Part of that is the notion that they can move on because they now know, or should know, how they are measured. They need to learn, if they have not already done so, how to measure their own performance. Self-evaluation is therefore a vital part of the new agenda.
	I am very sympathetic to this development and I think that all noble Lords would say that this is the right way forward. Moving away from the heavy interventionist bureaucracy of Ofsted to lighter touch procedures means that schools will monitor internally their performance and keep themselves up to scratch. All that Ofsted will have to do is ensure that each school has in place proper internal evaluation procedures.
	The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that schools develop along this route. It would be useful, therefore, to add to the role of inspectors the requirement to look explicitly at the development of self-evaluation procedures. We know that many of our best schools are doing this already, do not need to be told to do it and in fact did not need to be told to do it, which is one of the reasons that we want the light touch.
	However, with the best will in the world, there are always those who do not do something unless they are told to do it—those with whom I got very annoyed when I was a university lecturer who always said to me, "Is there something that we need to study for the examination?" In other words, "If we are not examined in it, we are not going to bother to do it". Therefore, if it is not on the list of matters that the inspector is to inspect, will the schools do it? Although the answer ought perhaps to be that we should not have to measure it, it is nevertheless a useful fallback position to have.
	That is the reason behind the tabling of this amendment. If this is part of the agenda as we know it, and to which I believe all sides of the Chamber are very sympathetic, arguably it is something that we need to measure as a fallback. Therefore, we suggest that it is added to the issues that the inspector has to consider. I beg to move.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: My name is down to support Amendment No. 32. If I had been better organised, it would also have been down to support Amendment No. 11.
	I support very strongly the thrust of the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. It is absolutely crystal clear that if inspections of only one and two days are to work, the schools themselves must have the right kind of self-evaluation procedures, and a large part of the inspector's job is to check that those procedures are actually working. I emphasise the words "actually working" because my own experience, not only in my inspectorate days but also in my many years of chairing the Charter Mark Judges' Panel (where very similar kinds of procedures were necessary), is that such self-evaluative procedures can look very impressive without producing any real results at all. It is all too easy, as I have seen in schools and colleges time and again, to generate vast amounts of paper—huge self-evaluation sheets for different departments, individual teachers and even pupils in positions of responsibility, such as prefects, and so on—all of which finally come together in one vast heap on someone's shelf to collect dust without anything else ever being done.
	If the inspectors are to check that the procedure is actually working, it is desperately important that they should look for schools that are genuinely self-reflecting, reflecting on their own practices and listening to their clients, whether they be students, parents or local businesses with whom they are working, and making adjustments to their performance and to the way in which they carry out the processes in the light of those matters. At the end of the day there has to be a real output other than piles of self-evaluation forms. I therefore approve absolutely of the wording of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, in which she refers to,
	"the degree to which schools are developing rigorous internal procedures".
	Those procedures have to result in action, and I support very strongly what the noble Baroness has said.

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: I want very briefly to support this amendment, for two reasons. The first is that the philosophy of the inspection system that this Bill encapsulates requires a confidence in the capacity of schools to evaluate themselves. The system will not work unless that is present.
	Secondly, the beginning of Clause 2(1) says:
	"The Chief Inspector has the general duty of keeping the Secretary of State informed about",
	certain school functions.
	The Secretary of State needs to know that self-evaluation is working; otherwise, he will have to change the inspection system.

Lord Lucas: It is not difficult for an inspector on a short visit to ascertain whether it is working. If it is going well, everyone will be bubbling about it because it will produce the kind of results that teachers and pupils really appreciate. I can remember that the first time I came across this kind of measure working extremely well was in Greenhead College, Huddersfield, which had a very inspiring principal, now sadly retired. The English department spent hours telling me about the system of numbers that it was using to evaluate the performance of teachers. You do not expect that kind of thing, but because it worked well and because it supported the teachers, a teacher would know if he was doing wrong and could call on the support of his colleagues. They would gather together with him, sort out the problem and he would receive the extra training required to bring him up to scratch. They felt it was enormously supportive.
	The pupils knew that they were getting the absolute best from their teachers. You could spot a child going wrong very quickly, you could spot a teacher who was off-beam very quickly, and everything was done to support the child and support the teacher and the whole college was absolutely delighted about it.
	Teachers mostly go into teaching for the joy of seeing children succeed. When one of these systems is working well, you can see it and be confident about it. It is not simply a question of waiting for the A-level results and then feeling rather sad about 15 or so pupils who have not done as well as you thought; you can see halfway through a term whether they are going wrong. You catch them, you pick them up, and come the A-levels they are where you want them to be.
	It is so fulfilling when these systems are working that you cannot go into a school without knowing that it is happening. It is terribly easy, too, to see when it is not happening. You simply ask the head what systems they have in place for evaluating teachers and what systems they have in place for training. If there is not real enthusiasm there, if there are not the stories of success and the new ideas that have been brought in pouring out of a head teacher, then he is not doing it right.
	Often, even in some of the old and great schools, it is not being done at all. There is a feeling that you do not need to know these things—that a good teacher is a good teacher, that people go their own way, that the results produce themselves at the end of the day, that it is rather demeaning to be watched by colleagues and that the idea of being judged by colleagues can be difficult for experienced teachers. There are all kinds of reasons why the system jams up, but when it works well it enthuses the whole school.
	It is not something that will be difficult to put into a short inspection, but it is absolutely crucial, as other noble Lords have said, to whether the system will work.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: Before he replies, perhaps the Minister will deal with the criticism that has come to us from the General Teaching Council for England. It states that it approves of the Government's new relationship with schools—the NRWS—and welcomes the way in which the role of school self-evaluation is upgraded by that model. In particular, the council commends the reference in the original Ofsted consultation document, Ofsted: The Future of Inspection, to the need for inspection to complement schools' development of planning and self-evaluation and to Ofsted's wish,
	"explicitly to share the responsibility for improving all educational settings in a way we have not done up to now".
	Those statements undoubtedly represent a significant policy shift, if carried through, as Ofsted has often been criticised by schools for not supporting them sufficiently in addressing the improvements that inspection has identified as necessary. That is the GTC's criticism and the Minister would be well advised at least to comment on it, if not to reply to it.

Lord Filkin: Although I agree with much of what has been said, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary—as the Committee would almost expect me to say. It has, however, been an important debate because, as we have said a number of times, the self-evaluation process is in a sense central to the Bill. One of the questions that I asked in preparation was how we can ensure that self-evaluation is done well.
	It starts, of course, from the principle that self-evaluation is not a burden. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, indicated, it should be a fundamental part of a school's processes, almost irrespective of whether this Bill had been invented. That is what good leadership is about. You are clear about what you are trying to achieve and you have rigorous and, you hope, not too bureaucratic processes for challenging yourself and seeing where you need to improve.
	Therefore, the thrust of the Bill, through aligning inspection with what ought to be good management and leadership practice, is an attempt to have a virtuous circle rather than the imposition of another burden. The self-evaluation ought to be done every year. It is not something that is done when the inspector cometh, but it is part of good management and leadership.
	Self-evaluation is central not only to the inspection process but is an important part of the wider policy for a new relationship with schools. Both self-evaluation and outside evaluation are vital to that new relationship. Our interest is in promoting quality outcomes, not policing in detail every activity that might contribute to how they are achieved.
	Clearly, schools are at different stages of development, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, indicated, in terms of the effectiveness and quality of self-evaluation. We are currently developing guidance jointly with Ofsted to include some good practice examples and guidance on completing the self-evaluation form, which is part of the inspection process. The guidance will be strategic rather than prescriptive, in line with the ethos of the new relationship with the school. It will not be a matter of, "Here is the form that you have to fill in.". That does not mean to say that there will be no check on the effectiveness of the self-evaluation.
	The strict answer to the probing amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, and the reason why it is not necessary, is that the assessment of the school's self-evaluation will take place partly through the inspection itself, which will test the school's judgment made through self-evaluation against the evidence that inspectors have gathered—either as part of other processes or as part of what the school offers.
	We shall come to this issue later, but there is an important message. If one thinks of schools that are at the lowest level of performance, as will be recognised from the different structure of categorisation, the school that is clearly not performing well, but which owns up to it and accepts it—in other words, it has an honest and realistic self-evaluation of where it sits and the commitment to do something about it—could find that it is in a different category from a school that is in denial. That is fundamental to motivating the right sort of behaviour that the system is trying to stimulate.
	It is not just an external inspection through the Ofsted process but a conversation with the school improvement partner. Part of the SIP's function is to challenge the processes used by the school in carrying out self-evaluation and the outcomes that result. The SIP can pose questions, suggest sources of evidence and challenge interpretations of the evidence that the school itself has not seen, but which someone external with a wider perspective of what is possible and what is happening can see. That is what good external challenge is about. The SIP can advise managers on identifying improvement priorities and read the summary provided on the self-evaluation form critically, checking that it is based on evidence, not assertion, and that it identifies significant issues.
	We have all seen the process that produces glossy documents, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, which are modestly self-congratulatory. Much more impressive are the people who have achieved, but who are critical about how to go further. That is what impresses the experienced inspector and external stimulus.

Lord Hanningfield: I hesitate to speak from personal experience of a local authority, but in Essex we have 110 secondary schools, 50 of which are already carrying out self-evaluation. They are at different levels, so perhaps 25 can skip through the process; and 25 may need real help because of where they are and the problems that they have. Help cannot happen overnight, so will the Minister say how that process can be started? It is no use Ofsted going in. It will say that the school is not doing it properly now, so someone must help it start the process. I am sure that it is common throughout the country that 75 per cent are probably able and moving towards their goal, while 25 per cent of schools need initial help in the process. Will the Minister comment on that?

Lord Filkin: The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, is right. That is a description of reality. From the centre, we are seeking to avoid thinking that the way to do this is to develop a thick manual and a set of forms. In essence, this has to be the stimulus for more creativity, rather than people thinking that they are going through a compliance process. The more specific answer to his question is that—apart from the high-level guidance that we are going to give, and I shall speak a bit more about the evidence of that in a few minutes—this is where the school improvement partners will have a particular function. They will be identifying those schools almost from the authority's own knowledge. Good local authorities know where schools are not performing well or do not have the capacity to self-evaluate well, as the noble Lord's local authority does, and they will focus their attention there and support those schools at the earlier stages of the process. It is crucial and the SIPs will do that.
	We have taken a conscious decision not to have a model of self-evaluation for schools and not to tell them how to do it. They are free to use any model that gives them the best insights into their improvement priorities. The guidance suggests key questions or acid tests that the school ought to pose to itself as part of the process. I shall touch on one or two of those very briefly.
	One acid test of the effectiveness of self-evaluation is whether the school's evaluation is based on a good range of telling evidence. Clearly, after a while, a school improvement partner or Ofsted will know the range of evidence that one would expect the school to be looking at and the comparators with which it was comparing itself in terms of its achievements.
	A second test is whether the self-evaluation identifies the most important questions about how well a school services learners. The question of what is most important is crucial. A self-evaluation process that describes 700 things is useless. A process must identify the things that are most critical to achieve and where the improvement is most critical. Unless there is focus, one can do nothing.
	The next question is how the school compares with the best comparable schools. That is about ambition. Another question is whether the self-evaluation planning involves key people in the school and seeks the views of key groups such as parents, learners and others; in other words, the process points on which they communicate. The last acid test is whether the self-evaluation process is integral to the key management systems. That relates to the points we talked about earlier. In other words, is the self-evaluation process the core business, rather than something that has been stuck on? It ought to be the core business of management. That is an outline of some of the key guidance developed in discussion with some of the leadership figures on the issue, and we think that it will help.
	Inspection will be based on the self-evaluation form which schools will be expected to update at least once a year. The inspector will compare the outcomes of the school's own self-evaluation with the outcomes of the inspection. How successful the school has been at identifying its own strengths and weaknesses will be an important test in the inspection and will be reflected in the reports. That is the direct answer to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. This is an important distinction. The inspection will test the outcomes of self-evaluation but not the processes that the school has been through to identify them.
	Finally, we envisage that Ofsted will be able to assess processes involving self-evaluation through future thematic surveys that give a wider view of the quality of self-evaluation taking place in the school. In other words, that is a clear signal that there has to be a thematic study at some point in order to research the developed experience and reflect upon what more needs to be done to take it further.
	Perhaps I may turn to some of the more specific points. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, asked about the GTC briefing. Self-evaluation is part of the improvement but we must keep clear boundaries in inspection. I am also advised that we do not think that we received a copy of the GTC briefing. We are therefore slightly handicapped in our answer on that. We shall do better in the follow up.
	We have already said that the new self-evaluation is designed to be integral to the school's planning and improvement cycle. So, I do not think that I can add more on that.
	I have gone on at length, but I think that this is an essential debate in terms of the architecture of the Bill. I hope that I have gone some way towards making the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, feel that the processes will answer questions while the legislation does not need to.

Lord Lucas: I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, is not too satisfied. I found the Minister's answer limited. I do not think he appreciates the position that we believe this aspect of inspection should have in terms of being brought to the Minister's attention. I very much hope that the noble Baroness will feel inclined to pursue the matter at a later stage. It is up to her; I shall not try to gazump her on it.
	I was reminded that my noble friend Lord Hanningfield carries the good name of my family in his hands and that all he can do to improve the performance of the Sir Charles Lucas School will be much appreciated.

Lord Hanningfield: For noble Lords' benefit, we have a Sir Charles Lucas School in Colchester which is named after my noble friend's family.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am not fully satisfied. The more the Minister identified the detailed guidance which has to be given the more I considered how useful it would be to have a small general clause. The Government will clearly be issuing guidance to schools. The issue will absorb resources. Training will be needed with regard to leadership and teaching staff. It will take time and effort to develop these self-evaluation procedures. Schools need the resources to develop them and a learning curve of how to do so.
	Knowing that it is one of the issues the inspectors will be considering will be a stimulus. They will be looking at how far their self-evaluation procedures produce the same answers as those of the inspectors. It is an important part. Nevertheless, they have to have those self-evaluation procedures in hand.
	The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, may be interested to know why I tabled the amendment. Having gone through the GTC briefing for the Second Reading, I thought that this was a good point that we should raise and we tabled the amendment.
	I hear what the Minister says about school improvement partners. However, school improvement partners seems a fashionable idea that will come and go. We have had quite a lot of such ideas through the ages. I would not mind betting that ten years down the line there will not be school improvement partners. Nevertheless, if we put a provision into legislation now it will be there 10 years down the line.

Lord Filkin: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I have some difficulty with her amendment. I said in short that the process of appraisal by Ofsted would explicitly make a judgment, as part of that process, on whether the school was developing rigorous internal processes of self-evaluation. That is what I stated at length. That is the truth in short of what the process will do. Therefore I am at a loss to understand why putting a provision into legislation will make any difference.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: It is not so dissimilar from saying,
	"the quality of the leadership in and management of those schools, including whether the financial resources made available to those schools are managed efficiently".
	"Are they developing rigorous internal self-evaluation procedures?" relates to much the same issue. If we put the one into the legislation I do not see why we should not put in the other.
	I shall withdraw the amendment. However, it is an issue to which we shall return.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: moved Amendment No. 12:
	Page 2, line 21, at end insert ", and
	( ) the behaviour of pupils and levels of discipline in those schools"

Baroness Morris of Bolton: Amendments Nos. 12 and 31 relating to England and Amendments Nos. 79 and 83 relating to Wales would introduce a new category to the inspection regime that the chief inspector would report upon and would be expected to keep the Secretary of State informed about; namely, the behaviour of pupils and levels of discipline in each school.
	The rationale behind the amendments is evident and relatively straightforward. In recent years we have seen a very real and genuine concern about the growing levels of indiscipline and classroom violence in our schools. Such behaviour is simply unacceptable. Pupils have the right to expect to be taught in an environment free from intimidation and fear while our hard-working teachers deserve the right to get on with their crucial jobs without a similar threat. Indeed, it is one of the key worries consistently identified by teachers, and one of the main reasons— alongside red tape—why they leave the profession.
	The Times Educational Supplement reported last year that there were over 17,000 expulsions in just one term in 2003. That figure, which might not even reveal the true extent of the problem, is both shocking and disturbing. Furthermore, we know that school standards and behaviour in the classroom are closely linked. Children learn best in a safe, secure and structured environment. They cannot learn in classrooms where loutish behaviour and disrespect for others is the norm.
	Establishing such a category would make it possible for parents to identify which of their local schools had concerns relating to problems of discipline. It would additionally allow the relevant education authorities to identify those schools particularly affected and target resources accordingly. At present, there is no category within the inspection regime that deals specifically with concerns over school discipline. As concerns and problems evolve, so must the inspection regime.
	The vast majority of parents would support the amendments, and I hope that the Minister will lend his weight to them. I beg to move.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: My name is down in support of Amendment No. 32 and I support Amendment No. 12 as well.
	It seems to me that there is a double layer with regard to what we mean by discipline in schools. It concerns what happens in the general areas of the school—the corridors, the playground, the cloakrooms—and what happens inside the classrooms. Although one issue very much overlaps with the other and affects it, they are different as far as inspection is concerned.
	The general areas of the school, where people of all age groups and very often both genders mix and mingle, reflect the school's level of expectation towards pupils' behaviour. It is perfectly true that in recent years there has been a degeneration of behaviour in the parts of the school outside the classroom which has begun increasingly to affect what is able to happen in terms of teaching and learning inside the classroom. That is very largely a failure of the expectations at school management level, and it knocks on to the inspection requirements.
	I have seen many schools in very deprived and difficult areas whose neighbours have huge discipline problems which nevertheless have well behaved, well ordered children who are simply meeting the expectations implicit in the way that the school is run. They are treated with respect and they are expected to treat each other and their teachers with equal respect.
	I do not think that discipline has anything to do with the old-fashioned cane, nor with the use of sarcasm or punitive measures. It has much more to do with the level of expectation of the way in which people behave towards each other.
	Inside the classroom there are different issues. The reason that discipline breaks down in some classrooms and very little learning takes place—because if children are not disciplined, quiet or engaged, not much learning will take place—has much more to do with the quality of the teaching. I have seen schools in which the behaviour outside the classroom was pretty bad—although, as I said, it knocks on eventually into the classrooms—but where individual teachers still had perfectly "well disciplined" children and well ordered learning. That was because their teaching was interesting and exciting; it engaged pupils and made them want to learn. Consequently, they were not bored and finding other things to do besides pay attention, if I can put it in old-fashioned terms.
	I believe that we are losing sight of what discipline is about, either because we are frightened of the word because it sounds like "bring back the cane" or something like that—I hope it is apparent that I am not saying so—or because we are losing the central core of what disciplined learning is about, which is the quality of the teaching. If it is exciting and engages the young people; if it makes them want to continue learning so that they do not even notice that they are behaving well because they are concentrating on what they are doing, then that is the ideal to which good teaching strives. Thank goodness there are thousands of classrooms in this country where that kind of teaching and learning still goes on. I strongly support this as an element in the package of inspection.

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: Many good reasons have already been given for this amendment. Perhaps I may underline one which has been alluded to. In the matter of parental choice, which the Government properly hold dear, one of the key criteria operated by most parents is the quality of discipline in the school for all the reasons that we have just heard. I reckon that it rates virtually as highly as academic standards when parents sit down wondering where there children will go. I believe that that is an important reason for supporting this amendment.

Lord Dearing: I am glad that this issue has arisen in the debate. I referred to the great importance of behaviour at Second Reading. I thought about tabling amendments because it is such an important issue. I did not do so for two reasons. The first is that I was satisfied that the Government are taking it seriously in spending £470 million over the past three years, as I recall the figure. Secondly, I went through the Ofsted reports to see if it was taking this seriously. I noticed that there have been three special reports on behaviour in schools since 1999. I went through the last general Ofsted report for the latest year and saw that there were specific paragraphs on behaviour in primary and secondary schools. I thought that people are caring about the issue, looking at it and reporting on it.
	Having said that, and having decided not to table amendments, despite the findings of Ofsted, I am not satisfied that there is not a problem. If I recall Ofsted's findings, it said that in almost all primary schools there is not a problem. I believe it said that in nine out of 10 schools it was good. As regards secondary schools, it found that behaviour was satisfactory and that in approaching three-quarters it was good.
	However, I recall from the Government's recent five-year strategy that they themselves say that there is low-level disruption in all schools. It states at page 62 that,
	"low-level disruption is a problem affecting all schools to some extent".
	The five-year strategy also stated on the same page that,
	"good behaviour is essential to good learning".
	But if Ofsted is saying that it is only good in approaching three-quarters of the secondary schools, there is a big problem. The problem of violence is known. I also saw the quote from the TES of 17,000 pupils being suspended. I was so shocked that I could not believe it, but I am now reassured that it must be true for the noble Baroness to quote it.
	In the Commons debate reference was made to an article in the Guardian which stated that 31 per cent of teachers leaving the profession quoted behaviour as the reason. I am clear that the Government are taking the matter seriously and that Ofsted is looking into it, but I have a sneaking little worry that the standards that Ofsted regards as satisfactory, or good, may not be sufficiently demanding for the good of education in our children's schools.
	I leave the Minister with a question. In judging what is good in behaviour, to what extent has Ofsted looked at what is considered good in other countries?

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I support this amendment. Whether it needs to be included on the face of the Bill is neither here nor there. But the issue we are all addressing is vitally important. If we know, according to Ofsted, that 90 per cent of schools have satisfactory standards of behaviour, how many are represented by the 10 per cent which is not covered? How appalling is the likely effect of that on their career prospects as they develop into full adult life?
	I regard this matter from the point of view of what the Government are trying to achieve—and I think they are trying to achieve a school where there is the kind of respect for one another that delivers what we are talking about. But can the Minister tell us where in this group of subsections that area is covered, because I honestly cannot see it? It is one reason why something more specific should be included. There is little doubt that matters such as violence and bullying can completely take over the ethos of a school. It is in those areas that we need to ensure that any inspection will take a very firm view in reporting on the changes that need to take place.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I support this important group of amendments. My name is attached to Amendments Nos. 79 and 83, which apply the same principle and requirement to the chief inspector in Wales, namely that he should have this function. There is no doubt about the importance of the behaviour of pupils and levels of discipline in schools, for the two reasons that have already been advanced; namely, the importance of these two elements for the learning process itself, as my noble friend Lady Perry said, because if there is discipline and good behaviour, that contributes naturally to an enjoyable learning process. Secondly, I support the amendments because those elements are all-important to parents. I am sure that, as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, indicated, they are among the first requirements with which parents are concerned.
	It is important that the inspectorate has broad investigative powers, particularly the function relating to behaviour and discipline, because the inspectorate alone has powers in the educational field. I was looking recently at the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill which will shortly enter Committee in this House. It was an enjoyable Christmas Recess experience, as I am sure your Lordships will appreciate. Powerful as that ombudsman will be in Wales, covering almost the entire span of public services, he is nevertheless debarred—at length, I might say—from examining much of the education field. Among the matters excluded from his investigative remit are:
	"Action relating to—(a) the giving of instruction, or (b) conduct, curriculum, internal organisation, management or discipline, in a school or other educational establishment maintained by a local authority in Wales".
	There is a further subsection which looks too complex to examine at this stage. But that gives the Committee an idea of the scope of exclusion. Therefore, if the Public Services Ombudsman in Wales cannot touch this sphere, surely it is all important that the inspectorate should be able to look into the issues of conduct—I draw particular attention to that—the curriculum, internal organisation, management and discipline. Two of the elements referred to in this amendment are actually and specifically excluded from the remit of the Public Services Ombudsman. I think that that is a very telling point in favour of ensuring that the inspectorate in Wales, as in England, has a responsibility in this area.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: At this late hour, and given that the Minister is anxious to proceed more smartly in this debate than we have thus far, I do not want to say very much but I wish to make two points.
	First, the inspectorate already looks at discipline within schools. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, being a governor of a school that has just gone through the inspection process, I can tell the Committee that the inspectorate does indeed report on behaviour and discipline within a school. Given that that is already covered and that we know that inspectors have that remit, I, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, am uncertain. I feel that this is a very important issue; nevertheless, I am not convinced that we need to add this extra provision to the Bill.
	Secondly, I want to reinforce the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. It is important to get the two equations right. You can achieve satisfactory educational standards only if, at the same time, you get the behavioural equation right. You cannot teach a class if it is misbehaving. With regard to the concept of the two simultaneous equations, when I was a parent-governor at a large girls' comprehensive school in London, I used to emphasise that we needed to ensure that we got the simultaneous equation right if we were to achieve the required standards. It seems to me that these are the two issues that one has to look at, and they must be seen as simultaneous equations: you need to get both right if you are to achieve.

The Earl of Listowel: I want to make two points. First, I listened with great interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark, when she spoke about the key being to engage the interests of children. That tallies very much with my own limited experience several years ago working in a small primary school with two boys who were not engaging with their class. I was watching the class and worked with the two boys. I set them a task of having to write a certain amount against the clock. They had been wasting time but they got down to the job and enjoyed it. It was a competition and they were very focused. It seems to me that engaging children's interest is key.
	It is to be hoped that part of the Bill's impact will be to free teachers more so that they can think about the needs of the children. It is hoped that they will have fewer worries about bureaucracy and inspections so that they can be more focused on what children need and in what children are interested.
	Secondly, I want to mention, tentatively, the importance of communication between teachers and parents. Parents can provide a key for teachers in understanding why children are difficult in class and they may be able to give them ideas about how better to manage children's behaviour. Certainly it is very important to know about the background of children in care. More and more nowadays, teachers can call upon a teaching assistant to work individually with a child. Some children need individual attention as they cannot work well in groups. I think that that also needs to be borne in mind.

Lord Lucas: I, too, think it is extremely important that this is a matter on which the inspectors specifically report. As the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, said, it is an issue on which parents focus. That is absolutely right. It is one of the key points of interest for parents because it is such a good diagnostic of other things that are going on in the school. It is a diagnostic of how good the SEN provision is. If it is falling apart, there will be bad behaviour. It is diagnostic of how good the pastoral care is. As my noble friend Lady Perry of Southwark said, it is a diagnostic of how good the teaching is. Above all, it is a diagnostic of the sort of life that your child is likely to lead at the school.
	At the same time, it is terribly hard to establish the level of discipline in a school. When an inspector comes in, everything is perfect. It is the natural reaction of pupils as well as teachers to be on good behaviour when there is an inspector around, whatever things are like on other days. It is one of the reasons—I imagine that we will come back to this with other amendments—why it is important for inspectors to talk to pupils and parents, not just through stilted interviews but by giving them time to talk on their own terms and taking time to listen to them. That is how you get a feeling for what is going on and start to pick up the histories and feelings that are indicative of the problems in behaviour and discipline in a school.
	The other thing that the inspectors must get right is understanding that discipline comes in all forms. The inspectors had a problem with Summerhill a few years back. I think that they have now learnt that you can have something close to anarchy that is, none the less, disciplined. Schools come in all styles and sizes, and it is important to understand whether, in the context of the spirit of the school, the school is disciplined, rather than expecting some sort of model with everyone sitting at desks in a regimented way, as happens with pupils at lots of schools—usually under threat of expulsion. Good discipline means an environment in which pupils are happy and can fulfil themselves and learn well.

Lord Filkin: We have had an important debate on a crucial issue. At the North of England conference on 6 January, my new Secretary of State made discipline and behaviour in schools one of the central elements of what was effectively her maiden speech. She said that universal high standards required universal good behaviour in our schools. She went on to talk about the contract between the parents and the schools and what it implied and about how badly behaved pupils damaged their own education and that of their classmates. So, we know how crucial the matter is and how crucial it is to find ways of making things better in schools where they are not good enough.
	We agree that the inspection should report on behaviour and discipline in schools. The framework for the inspection of schools that is being developed to support the new arrangements will capture the position on pupil behaviour and discipline in all schools. We are already committed to ensuring that behaviour and discipline will be covered fully by school inspection.
	The inspection of behaviour already plays an important part in Ofsted's remit, as it is possible through the current statutory purposes. It will be strengthened through our proposed extension of the remit of the chief inspector in reporting on the school's contribution to the well-being of pupils. The inclusion of a reference to well-being in the purposes of inspection will, therefore, serve the intention of placing behaviour and discipline firmly within the inspection remit.
	Under the current inspection framework, the inspector must report on attitudes and behaviour, including attendance at school; the extent to which pupils show interest in school life; the extent to which pupils behave well in lessons and around the school; the extent to which pupils are willing to take responsibility; the extent to which pupils are free from bullying, racism and other forms of harassment; and the extent to which pupils form constructive relationships with others. There is a clear, prescriptive template for evaluation. Similarly, the new inspection framework will require specific, explicit judgments about behaviour on each school that is inspected.
	We recognise the importance of such matters. The Government's Behaviour and Attendance programme includes action and support—some specifically targeted—aimed at helping schools, LEAs and parents. Ofsted will support that programme through ongoing thematic studies and advice on best practice.
	I have already spoken about the inclusion of the reference to well-being and how it strengthens the chief inspector's remit. Behaviour and attendance are fundamental to the raising of school standards and attainment and cannot be seen in isolation. We are committed to giving every child the opportunity to achieve his or her goals. By inspecting behaviour and discipline as part of a school's overall contribution to well-being, Ofsted helps every school to identify its strengths and areas for improvement.
	The amendments tabled for Wales by the noble Lords, Lord Hanningfield and Lord Roberts of Conwy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton—that is, Amendments Nos. 79 and 83—would, under Clause 19, introduce a duty on the chief inspector to inform the Assembly about the behaviour of pupils and levels of discipline and a duty on an inspector conducting an inspection under Clause 27 to report on the behaviour of pupils and levels of discipline at a school.
	The Assembly recognises the difficulties faced by head teachers and other staff when dealing with disruptive pupils and is firmly committed to promoting discipline and order in schools. All children should have the chance to study free from disruption and teachers need the tools to help them to minimise it when it occurs. LEAs must have in place behaviour support plans that should give details of training, consultation, guidance and other services available to schools to help them effectively manage pupil behaviour. All must have effective, clear behaviour policies.
	For those reasons, under Clause 19, dealing with the functions of chief inspectors, a chief inspector is required to inform the Assembly about the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils. To reflect and to discharge that duty the new common inspection framework introduced in Wales from September 2004 makes explicit reference to behaviour and discipline. Under the new framework, inspectors will be required in every instance to assess how a school contributes to the development by pupils of personal, social and learning skills. That will include judgments on the extent to which pupils behave responsibly and show respect for others, achieve high levels of attendance and punctuality, show motivation, and work productively and make effective use of time.
	There is no difference between us on the importance of those points and the importance of making improvement. I hope that I have been able to illustrate how Ofsted, now and in the future, will have very clear and explicit duties to inspect on behaviour and discipline in schools and to report on them, which has clearly been the thrust of the debate.
	Recognising that all that will happen, a number of noble Lords asked how we can make the system work even better. It is not a simple matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, is right: in part, it is a function of good teaching. There is a relationship.
	I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, is right that that is a dimension that interests parents passionately. Common sense tells them that an orderly school is one in which a child is more likely to learn and one that will provide a more comfortable environment—rather than a semi-anarchic one—in which a child can live.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, signalled the extent of what we are doing, but I shall not weary the House with that now. He also asked questions about how we can ensure that Ofsted's standards are sufficiently high. I do not mean that as a rude remark about Ofsted, but it is a good question. How do we ensure that our ambitions are high enough by comparison with those of other countries?
	The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, touched on the fact that regardless of the length or shortness of an inspection, it is not a simple matter to get a fix on exactly what is happening on discipline in a school. He is also right to say that there is a linkage with SEN performance. If a school is performing poorly on SEN, that will lead fairly rapidly to behavioural problems, and not solely in primary schools.
	I am with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, on the fact that that issue is vital. Regardless of whether such provision is put in the Bill—and clearly we do not believe that its inclusion would make an improvement—the issue of how to improve is still before us. I shall not signal that I expect to return with a magic answer, but the quality of the debate requires us all to reflect further on what can be done to make the objectives we share work more powerfully through this part of the process. It is a central part.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, that the new Welsh ombudsman will be able to investigate complaints relating to Estyn in the future. Therefore, movement is taking place there. He also asked what the Assembly is doing about pupil attendance and discipline. Rather than go into detail now, as that will take more time, perhaps I can write to him with an answer and copy it to other Members. I hope that that has been helpful.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: I thank the Minister for his very helpful comments. Quite clearly we share the same desires on discipline in schools. I shall read what he has said with interest, but I shall probably return to the matter. When two former chief inspectors would like to see the provision on the face of the Bill I think that we should take the matter seriously. At the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 13 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 14:
	Page 2, line 34, after "teachers" insert "and other staff involved in providing support for teaching and learning"

Baroness Walmsley: I rise to move Amendment No. 14 and speak to Amendment No. 15, which is grouped with it. Both refer to subsection (5), which deals with other functions that could be given to the chief inspector, including responsibility for training.
	Amendment No. 14 seeks to probe whether Ofsted will now have a role in inspecting the quality of training and professional development for the school workforce other than just for teachers. The issue is important, given the extended remit of the Teacher Training Agency under Part 3 and the additional training responsibilities under Clause 92.
	The inclusion in the new school inspection framework of the requirement for inspectors to evaluate the commitment of the school's leadership to induction and continuing professional development is very welcome. But currently that appears to be just about teachers. Will there be any evaluation of how schools and local authorities are managing in relation to providing genuine professional development opportunities for all members of school staff and not just teachers? How will the extended remit of the Teacher Training Agency be reflected in the inspections of higher education institutes and further education colleges?
	I think that we would all agree that the effective development of staff through induction and professional development must be inspected. However, that must have due regard for the practical constraints facing schools, in particular due to lack of funding following the removal of dedicated funding for induction through the Standards Fund and the discontinuation of funding for a number of national continuous professional development initiatives. We need to take those constraints into account. Will inspectors record instances where staff are denied CPDs that they would have liked to undertake because the funding is not available?
	Amendment No. 15 probes whether the chief inspector's role in training is in relation just to initial teacher training—that is the training of teachers before they become teachers—or in relation to in-service training and professional development; in other words, teachers in schools. We have tabled the amendment to leave out the word "for" and insert "in" to probe whether that is the Government's intention. Clause 2(5) states:
	"The Chief Inspector is to have such other functions . . . with respect to the training of teachers for such schools, as may be assigned to him by the Secretary of State".
	That simply re-enacts existing legislation and relates to the inspection of initial teacher training. It is vital for the quality of ITT provision to be assessed in schools and colleges, but there is the important question why there appears to be no explicit role for the chief inspector in relation to teachers' continuous professional development because of the word "for" rather than the word "is" that we might have expected. So the amendment seeks to raise this question by putting in the word "in" instead.
	I hope the Minister can clarify both those points for us. I beg to move.

Lord Filkin: Amendment No. 14 proposed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Walmsley, raises an important point. Increasingly the education that children receive is not only a product of the work of teachers, although they are key players, but of a whole team of teachers and other types of specialist staff. This has been a revolution in recent years, which we believe is going well. It is already recognised in Ofsted's normal school inspection regime as one of the factors that influences the standards of teaching and learning in school.
	The noble Baroness proposes that Ofsted should now be given a power not only to examine the work of support staff in schools, but also the training that they receive and for which Part 3 of the present Bill provides.
	That would parallel exactly the powers that the chief inspector already has in respect of teachers. On the face of it, it seems a sensible suggestion. Although this will shock the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, with noble Lords' permission the Government would like to reflect further on it. I expect to be in a position to present the conclusions of that consideration on Report. It is almost a hit, but we should hold our breath until we actually get there.
	The amendment would replace provision for the inspection of teacher training "for" schools with a provision for inspecting teacher training "in" schools. I am not certain that my remarks will necessarily connect directly with the points that the noble Baroness amplified, but I shall have a go.
	Ofsted is responsible for inspecting the quality of all routes to qualified teacher status (QTS) in England and ensuring their compliance with the legal requirement for initial teacher training and the award of QTS. It is partly on the basis of those inspections that the Teacher Training Agency takes funding and accreditation decisions in respect of this provision. Part 3 of the Bill envisages that it will be able to continue to do so.
	I suspect that the effect of the amendment may not be what the noble Baroness envisages. By limiting the chief inspector's role to inspecting the training of teachers "in" schools rather than "for" schools, Ofsted would be prohibited from reporting on any parts of initial teacher training that take place in university education departments rather than in schools. The noble Baroness said clearly that that was not her intention, even though that would be the effect of the amendment.
	To labour the point, Ofsted could continue to inspect employment-based training, such as the graduate teacher programme, and school-centred initial teacher training programmes, but it could not look at substantial parts of BEd and PGCE courses that take place on university premises. The noble Baroness's question was not about that; it related to the genuine development opportunities offered for members of the school workforce. I shall have to exercise a paucity of imagination and write to the noble Baroness, as I have not yet been enlightened on the matter.

Baroness Walmsley: This is a very welcome surprise with which to start the new Session. I thank the Minister for volunteering to consider further Amendment No. 14. I shall not push the matter any further. I do not wish to count my chickens before they have hatched. The response is very welcome.
	I hope that the Minister will look again at my remarks on Amendment No. 15. Perhaps we can discuss it before Report. Although we would not want the inspection of work in universities to be made impossible, it is important that schools' leadership in ensuring that continuous professional development can take place in schools is also inspected. So far as I can see, the word "for" would not allow that. I should be most grateful if the Minister would consider the matter further. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]
	Clause 2 agreed to.
	Clause 3 [Annual and other reports to Secretary of State]:

Baroness Morris of Bolton: moved Amendment No. 17:
	Page 2, line 41, after "it" insert "for affirmative resolution"

Baroness Morris of Bolton: I warmly welcome the fact that at half-past nine we have reached Clause 3. This is a simple, straightforward amendment; it builds on Amendment No. 5. Its intent is to ensure that the annual report of the chief inspector is laid before the House for affirmative resolution. We believe that it would give Parliament a vital, clear opportunity to discuss the work of the chief inspector and Ofsted annually.
	Given the ever-increasing role that Ofsted plays in our education system—for example, its recent move into early years and nursery provision—it is important that Parliament has a chance to discuss its work, how effectively it is performing, its functions and how much value it adds to our education system. This is a simple step designed to improve parliamentary accountability, openness and transparency. I hope that it will be supported from all corners of the Committee. I beg to move.

Lord Filkin: Clause 3 re-enacts the current requirement that the chief inspector must make an annual report to the Secretary of State, who must in turn lay that report before Parliament. The purpose of this provision is to ensure the accountability of the chief inspector to Parliament. We touched on this earlier in our discussions.
	The requirement to lay annual reports before each House of Parliament ensures appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and the annual report sets out the professional judgements of the chief inspector informed by the evidence of inspection on the health of education and care provision within his remit. However, the affirmative resolution procedure provides that Parliament must expressly approve what is before it. It is a procedure used to approve delegated legislation such as certain regulations or orders.
	The implication of tabling an amendment which includes the term "affirmative resolution" is to imply that the report should not stand if Members of the House do not like what it has to say. The implication of that is that the independence of the chief inspector's judgment is subject to whether Parliament approves what the chief inspector says. I am certain that that is not the intent of the amendment but its implication would be in danger of weakening the chief inspector's independence.
	If the intention of the amendment is to seek assurance that there is a proper parliamentary scrutiny of the issues raised in the chief inspector's annual report—amen to that. I can categorically offer that assurance.
	One of the most well-established routes for this is through the Education and Skills Select Committee, which holds an annual session on the chief inspector's annual report. The chief inspector and his senior management team are called to give evidence and account for the report and its contents. In recent years there has also been a regular parliamentary debate on such matters relating to the end report and the work of Ofsted, including at or soon after the laying of the report. In addition, there is also ministerial accountability to Parliament for the operation of Ofsted. It is right that Parliament has the opportunity to discuss issues raised by the annual report and other matters relating to the quality of education. The current arrangements provide for that. They are within the control of Parliament—they are not in the control of the Executive or the Government in any respect whatever.
	It is up to Members of this House and another place how they seek to engage with the inspector in the future. I hope that the noble Baroness is reassured that the crucial accountability of the chief inspector to Parliament without that independence being compromised will be there strongly in the future, in a form that will be decided by Parliament, not by Ministers from this Dispatch Box.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: I thank the Minister for his reply. We so enjoy our debates on Ofsted that it might be nice to make them an annual event. I will reflect on what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Lucas: moved Amendment No. 18:
	Page 2, line 41, at end insert—
	"( ) must make an annual report, concerning the results of studies funded under section (Evaluation of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools for England), to the Secretary of State who must lay a copy of it before each House of Parliament,"

Lord Lucas: In moving Amendment No. 18 I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 50.
	Just as schools will benefit from evaluation by Ofsted, so would Ofsted benefit from outside evaluation. No group of people—however wonderful and worthy—can do everything on their own. It is always helpful to have some outside view of what is going on, some new influx of fresh ideas, some critical thinking—which is a difficult thing to produce from within an organisation—some way of challenging what is going on to enable an institution to improve itself and move forward. Ofsted is becoming such a crucial part of our education structure that we really ought to have that in place for it.
	What I have suggested here is a structure where the research into Ofsted's methods and into the results it is producing would be commissioned independently of Ofsted and the DfES and not wedded to any particular research council. It would be carried out by researchers who are in turn subject to their own evaluation and monitoring procedures as part of the higher educational research establishment, so that the monitoring of the monitors is already catered for.
	Their results would be reported back to us through the medium of Ofsted, so that it did not appear as something which was criticism out of the blue to be confronted and rebutted by Ofsted, but as part of Ofsted's own self-evaluation. Doubtless it would disagree with some of the criticisms, but others it would take on board. Overall it would be seen as a constructive process. Whatever structure we adopt, it is essential that it should be done. We will all be better off, in particular Ofsted, if we do so. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I rise to speak briefly in support of these two amendments. It is important for us to be concerned with Quis custodiat custodies here. We have in Ofsted what is now a very powerful agency which at the moment is not subject to any regular evaluation procedures, although reviews are carried out from time to time. It would be quite helpful if such a procedure were written into its remit and therefore I strongly support the amendments.

Lord Filkin: I agree with the central thrust of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, without—as he indicated—necessarily agreeing with the detail. Ofsted has to evaluate its work, and it is one of the Government's principles of inspection, published in July 2003 by the Office of Public Service Reform, against which Ofsted and other inspectorates are judged.
	It may be helpful to differentiate between the evaluation of two distinct elements. The first involves the evaluation of the impact of Ofsted and its work, while the second relates to the evaluation of the processes involved in inspection. In part, obviously, it is the efficiency between the two that is relevant. The processes should lead to the most effective impact in the most economical way.
	The first element might lead to questions about the extent to which Ofsted inspections have contributed to school improvement or accountability, while the second would lead to questions about methods and criteria for reaching judgments, and whether they are accurate and sound.
	With regard to the first element—evaluating the impact of inspection—Ofsted has undertaken a comprehensive self-evaluation of its work, seeking independent validation of this through the Institute of Education. The results of that work were made public in a report published in July 2004. I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and to other noble Lords on the Front Benches with the appropriate reference. The study draws on extensive survey evidence from service providers and stakeholders, including parents. It analyses, for example, the impact of Ofsted on the improvement of schools and its impact on other sectors such as teacher training institutions and local authorities, as well as its impact on the improvement of inspection itself.
	Turning to the second element, the evaluation of processes, Ofsted takes very seriously its responsibilities to ensure the quality of inspections and to keep its methodologies up to date. It has undertaken several international studies, particularly with the Dutch inspectorate, which have shown that the criteria and instruments of each inspectorate are capable of being used consistently by inspectors in both countries and of both nationalities. Ofsted meets regularly with inspectorates across Europe to compare methodologies and to learn from best practice elsewhere.
	The methodology of the new inspection arrangements has been tried, evaluated and revised through the pilot phase. Each term, schools and LEAs have worked with inspectors to evaluate the approaches used and to recommend improvements. It is an active process that embraces the involvement of participants in the development of the model of inspection itself. Focus groups of parents and pupils have also been consulted on the approaches used to gather their views.
	Further work is being planned to evaluate the new inspection arrangements as a whole. This will be completed in part through reviews conducted by the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit. It will also include all of the evaluations carried out throughout the pilot inspection. This is just the start of a move towards regular and systematic evaluation.
	Ofsted also intends to commission an external evaluation of the project to implement the new arrangements proposed in this Bill, as well as they should—this meets the point about external evaluation. It will review the new inspection methodology and the impact of inspections on school effectiveness, which is the acid test. This will take account of the inspections carried out in the first year of the pilot, which demonstrates Ofsted's commitment to ongoing external evaluation of its work.
	I agree that both the aspects of evaluation I have mentioned require proper scrutiny and frequent review. I hope that the examples I have given illustrate that Ofsted shares this commitment, which is underpinned by the Government's commitment to their principles of inspection published in 2003. You must have external processes for validating inspection procedures; they cannot be left in the hands of the inspectors themselves.

Lord Lucas: I am encouraged by what the noble Lord has said. Nonetheless, he has described a process of internal self-evaluation on the lines that Ofsted requires of schools, and quite right too. I am delighted that Ofsted is doing that as well as taking a critical look at itself by commissioning research into what it does and how well it does it. That is the ordinary process of a healthy organisation, but there also needs to be an element of critical, external—uncommissioned by Ofsted—evaluation. Commissioning an evaluation of yourself always tends to produce positive results, because people who operate in that kind of business want to be commissioned by other people. If you get a reputation for telling people in public that they are useless, you tend not to be commissioned by other people to do similar work.
	It is rather like the old, independent schools inspection system before it became slightly sharper. Everything used to be wonderful, rosy and beautiful because they were all doing it to themselves and it was a boost to the whole system. We need to get away from that. There needs to be a clear level of external evaluation by Ofsted of what is going on.
	I will read what the Minister has said together with the references. If I still want to raise any matter, I will come back to him on Report. However, I would like some help from him in respect of three matters. First, has Ofsted ever done a reconciliation of its evaluation of schools with the evaluations produced by the value added measures used by the Government, or indeed by the University of Durham? Secondly, can the Minister obtain for me the specification for the data that Ofsted collected under the old regime on each school and the data that it proposes to collect under the new regime? That would be immensely helpful in assisting me to get a feeling for the data that will actually be in place to support judgments under both the new and old regimes. Given that—I am grateful for the nod of the head—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: moved Amendment No. 19:
	Page 3, line 1, leave out "may" and insert "shall"

Baroness Morris of Bolton: Amendment No. 19 in respect of England and Amendment No. 80 in respect of Wales are designed to ensure that the chief inspector in each respective country does indeed publish either the annual report or any other report that he sends to the Secretary of State, or in the case of Wales to the Assembly.
	As the Bill currently stands, there appears to be a degree of uncertainty around the word "may". That gives the impression that the relevant chief inspector can choose whether or not to publish the document—a situation that is open to possible misinterpretation.
	These amendments would remove any element of doubt and would ensure that all documents are published and are available for public consumption, thus once again bringing greater transparency and openness to the work of the chief inspector. I beg to move.

Lord Filkin: Amendment No. 19 would require the chief inspector to publish annual and other reports that he makes to the Secretary of State. The amendment would remove the current discretion that the chief inspector has, and has had since the beginning, to decide whether to publish reports to the Secretary of State.
	It is important to recognise that the chief inspector already publishes the vast majority of reports. However, to require him to publish in all cases risks making public information that is sensitive, including that which identifies individuals. We think that it is appropriate that the chief inspector should retain this discretion whether to publish the reports that he makes to the Secretary of State. It is important that, in exercising his functions, the chief inspector should be able to give the Secretary of State frank advice and report to him without having to publish all the reports that he makes.
	In addition, it is important to emphasise that in Clauses 13 and 15 the Bill makes detailed provision forth distribution of reports of school inspections to ensure that the appropriate persons, and importantly parents, receive a copy of inspection reports. Furthermore, Clause 10 provides that the chief inspector may publish such inspection reports.
	The current arrangements ensure that there is public access to a wide range of inspection evidence, including electronic information. Ofsted's is one of the most frequently visited websites, attracting 150 million hits per year. The current arrangements give the chief inspector suitable flexibility while ensuring that a wealth of information is made available to the public.
	In Wales, Amendment No. 80 would have a similar effect on Clause 20, requiring the chief inspector to make an annual report to the Assembly and requiring the Assembly to publish such reports. It also provides powers for the chief inspector to make and publish other reports on any matter within her remit. It therefore seems that, as with Amendment No. 19, the amendment to Clause 20, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, is to require the chief inspector to publish all reports made under the provisions of Clause 20.
	The ability to inspect and report freely on any matter within the remit of the chief inspector is central to the drive to improve the quality of education and standards achieved by learners. The publication of reports ensures that findings are made widely available to both support school improvement and add to the evidence base that informs the development of policy.
	It is right, therefore, that in principle inspection reports should be published and made widely available, and this is the case with respect to the vast majority, including school inspections and advice provided by the chief inspector to the Assembly. However, there are instances where it is the responsibility of others to publish reports made by the chief inspector. For example, it is the Assembly's statutory responsibility to publish the chief inspector's annual report, as required by the School Inspections Act.
	While accepting the principle that inspection reports should be published, there has to be a degree of flexibility to acknowledge the responsibilities for publication that in some instances fall to others. It would not, therefore, be appropriate to require the chief inspector to publish all reports as proposed. However, the expectation is that the vast majority should be, except for the qualifications I have given. I hope that is helpful.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: I thank the Minister for that reply. I shall reflect on what he said. I shall talk to people about this and may come back to it. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: moved Amendment No. 20:
	Page 3, line 2, leave out "in such a manner as he considers appropriate" and insert "both electronically and by other means"

Baroness Morris of Bolton: As with the previous amendments, Amendment No. 20 in relation to England and Amendment No. 81 in relation to Wales would have a similar effect on either side of the border. They would remove the seemingly discretionary powers, yet again, of the respective chief inspector to publish—if, as we have seen in my previous set of amendments, he publishes the reports at all—in a fashion and manner of his choosing.
	Instead, the intent of the amendments would be to compel the chief inspector to publish all documents sent either to the Secretary of State or the Assembly both electronically and in hard copy, once again aiding the process of transparency and openness.
	Now that we live in the age of the Freedom of Information Act, such information that would be passed from chief inspector to Secretary of State is liable to be requested by any individual. Therefore, by opening up this process, not only are we saving the staff of the relevant departments a significant amount of time as the requests start to arrive but, most important of all, we are saving the taxpayer a considerable amount of money.
	Furthermore, what could the chief inspector possibly have to hide that could not be displayed either on the Ofsted website or in hard copy in an Ofsted office? I beg to move.

Lord Filkin: I shall seek to be brief in replying to Amendments Nos. 20 and 81 respectively. The Bill states that the relevant chief inspector may arrange for the publication of annual and other reports in such a manner as they consider appropriate. The amendments would have the effect that such publications should be made available both by electronic and other means.
	Clause 10(2) in relation to England and Clause 28(2) in relation to Wales also provide that the publication of annual and other reports to the Secretary of State may be by electronic means.
	The current arrangements ensure that there is public access to a wide range of inspection evidence, including electronic information. Ofsted's website is one of the most frequently visited government websites, attracting some 150 million hits a year, as I have signalled. If the noble Baroness intends that hard copy should be provided on every occasion, this would significantly add to the cost to the taxpayer. It would be difficult to predict how many copies of each would be published, and publishing large numbers could lead to waste.
	There is no evidence that the public wants the chief inspectors to make more reports available in hard copy. However, there is evidence that the website is working. It is a very effective vehicle and must continue to be promoted. The current arrangements give the chief inspector suitable flexibility while ensuring that a wealth of information is made available to the public.
	Similar arguments apply to Wales. The system that has been used in Wales for some time has worked well. It provides a good use of resources and there would be little added value in removing the chief inspector's current discretion by requiring the publication of all reports both electronically and by other means.
	It is important that both inspectors recognise that these are public reports; they are reports to which the public have a right of access. In many situations a website is clearly the best way. There will be times when, for a variety of reasons, the public will not have access unless there is a hard copy. That discretion must be used intelligently and flexibly, which goes to the heart of what the inspector is there for.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: I thank the noble Lord for his comments and accept what he says. We were concerned that although we tend to think that everyone has access to computers, not everyone does. We did not want anybody to be left out. I hear what he says about flexibility. We do not want it to be too prescriptive if it can be at the discretion of the chief inspector. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 3 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
	Clause 4 agreed to.

Baroness Andrews: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at nine minutes before ten o'clock.